Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Initial discussion

I don't understand why we need another RfC specially on what is called "full date mark up". Is this what is normally known as date autoformatting? People have resoundingly rejected the idea in an RfC already. Does anyone here disagree? If this is referring to DA, I do not agree with the list of disadvantages; nor do I think they're worded in a way that is easily understandable by most WPians.

I though the issues concerned only where year and month-day links might be used. Can we please keep the RfC to what has not already received overwhelming consensus?

The current wording is very confusing to me, and will be the more so for most editors. Tony (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, what do you suggest regarding wording? It seems clear to me. I've no preference regarding full date linking - I suspect it will get overwhelmingly rejected in this poll so we might as well just take it out. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd take it out. It would be profoundly irritating to all those who bothered to contribute to the first one to have to do it again. The results will be contaminated because many people would simply not contribute again. Here it is.

May I suggest that instead we isolate the issues that might be RfCed. If possible, the RfC(s) should be kept as simple as possible, and should be worded so that everyone can understand them. Why is it necessary to have two phases? I'd have thought something like dabomb's list of exceptions might form the basis of a yes/no list of responses (or even Likert-scale choice of 1–5 to indicate approval–disapproval – I'm unsure until it's more concrete). I haven't researched fully how the opposing parties feel, but I notice Arthur Rubin said "DaBomb's new summary of the consensus is reasonably close to my understanding" at the Workshop page. Here is his summary of "When to link". Could this—preferably tweaked and reduced in size, if possible—form the basis of a series of questions? I think people need to discuss this here first. Tony (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Date auto formatting should be in this RFC as the matter was not settled by the last two RFCs (in fact a majority of Wikipedians seemed to support some form, as evidenced at WP:MOSNUM/RFC (see Question #2)). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

When will those polled be asked how often they want chronological items to be linked? In phase 2? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Cole, your mantra that "a majority of Wikipedians seemed to support some form, as evidenced at WP:MOSNUM/RFC (see Question #2))" needs to be nipped in the bud, as I've already done at MOSNUM. There, I clearly pointed out the reasons that your RfC funnelled respondents into a "sometimes" category, giving skewed results compared with your No. 1 RfC and the simple one I put up, which asked whether people wanted to keep the current deprecation or go back to "normally" autoformatting dates. Here is the text I put up, again.

That the following text in MOSNUM:

Autoformatting: Dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting (even though in the past this was considered desirable).

be changed to:

Autoformatting: Dates (containing either day, month and year, or day and month) should normally be autoformatted.

The result was overwhelmingly in favour of staying put. I've explained how yours funnelled people into a middle category: it's the old extreme book-end technique in questionnaires.

Caught between two choices. Users were given a stark choice. By entering a "Support", they were somehow ensuring that developer time will be used effectively ("To make sure [MediaWiki developers'] time is being used effectively")—it seemed like the easy, positive thing to do. By contrast, declaring Oppose was framed as turning down the opportunity to have developers deliver a date-autoformatting approach that works—and worse, as interrupting professional work towards this goal, something that many folk would think twice about doing ("If not, the developers should be informed of this so they may focus on other aspects of the software that need improving"). I'd feel a heel myself at spoiling their ongoing project. Support responses. A look through them clearly shows that many supporters were influenced by the blue-sky prospect of a new generation of technology, just as in the first RfC; again, many showed a confusion of the issues and technicalities, as would be expected when non-specialists are faced with a complex feature. Conclusion. Again, writing an RfC is an exercise in trying to avoid bias and contamination, a difficult task indeed; the data are only as good as the NPOV of the stimulus. I submit that the language and choices presented to users rendered the result significantly unreliable, and explains why it generated much higher "Support" numbers than the first RfC above or the more straightforward RfC. Regrettably, this RfC does not deliver useful data.

Arthur Rubin does not seem to agree with you on this point, and I suspect he would not go along with yet another RfC on the same issue. (Does he?) Are you the only one, Cole? Tiring out WPians, asking them back and back again to respond to the same issue, will quickly degrade the results (many people will spurn the RfC if we're not careful—perhaps you want that?). Better, as dabomb hints at, to focus on more fine-grained stuff that has not already been decided. Tony (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right Tony, as consensus has not been established to remove all auto formatting, we don't need to waste the communities time by asking them again. We can safely continue with developing and implementing a new auto formatting system until such time as you get community consensus to totally remove the system. Thank you for making this simpler. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Stumbling over yourself, there? After resoundingly declaring that it does not want to go back to the old DA system, the community then declared straight after that context that bots do not need prior consensus at MOSNUM to assist articles to comply with a guideline at MOSNUM. This was not quite so resounding as the first RfC (above), but still a large majority. Here is the text:

==Automated and semi-automated compliance==

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 [[WT:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)|the talk page]].

Within one or two, by my counting, the results were:

• 79 opposed the requirement of separate and prior consensus for bots to enable compliance (with the deprecation of DA people had just approved of above).
• 22 supported the requirement.
• 2 were neutral.

So the community doesn't want DA, and they strongly support the use of bots to enable its removal; this interpretation appears plain to me. What else could it mean?Asking people again would risk irritating them to the extreme.

This RfC should concern date fragments—when and how often they should be used, as per dabomb's summary, which summarised what came out of Cole's RfCs, (didn't it?)—not date autorformatting. Please let's not mix up the two. Tony (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear if this response was meant for me, but if it was, it was irrelevant to what I said. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Who, me? Yes, it was demonstrating why you were indulging in, at worst, a lie—just above—engineered by a skewed and fatally flawed RfC. Please don't keep claiming your cooked results as a true representation. Tony (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Dabomb87

Could I suggest that we don't ask the question "how often they want chronological items to be linked"? I think this does not represent the thought processes of an editor deciding on whether to make a link. I mean, editors don't think "What proportion of other date-links already exist? Therefore I must/mustn't make another one." They should be thinking "Is the link I'm considering relevant/useful/helpful/etc. (or whatever criteria is decided)?" So, the answer to the question about "how often" simply gives an editor no real guidance for any particular edit. That was the worst flaw in the recent complex RfC. Please stay with asking the community "Under what circumstances (if any) should [a particular class of date-link] be made?" --RexxS (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wording and structural issues

Numbering: I believe the points should be numbered, not bulleted, to enable easy referral.

Technicalities need glossing: Points 2–4 in the "advantages" category for the first one are hard for me to understand, let alone WPians who are less acquainted with the issues:

• Clearly indicates which strings are actual dates (as opposed to, e.g., quotations of dates.)

• What is an "e.g." quotation of dates? I have not the least idea without an example or clearer explanation. Italic-close wrongly positioned, BTW.

• Simplifies automated processing of article text (i.e. gathering metadata).

• This is being put up as an advantage of linking, but no one has ever provided an example of how it could be so. If the point is to be made, can we have a short gloss for "metadata" and an example, if possible in just a few words? I'm foggy on what an advantage would even look like.

• Populates "what links here" pages with possibly relevant data.

• This is for editors of year and day-month pages, is it? I think that should be stated, if so.

Skew accepted but needs to be noted: I note that "advantages" are given first position over "disadvantages" in every case. While either had to come first, consistently, this should be regarded as an advantage in itself in further negotiations over the text and structure. Tony (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

.

Use of linking

Can anyone provide me with a list of specific examples of when to link that needs clarifying? I've got a couple so far on the main draft page, but I could do with help getting a full list. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Not trying to toot my own horn, but User:Dabomb87/Summary of the Date Linking RFCs#When to link is pretty detailed in that regard. I will provide additional examples later. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggested autoformatting question

Shall the wish of some developers to preserve the present autoformatting markup (such as the square brackets in "[[March 9]], [[2008]]") be overruled and the automated removal of any such markup that is present only for autoformatting purposes begin? The stated reason for preserving such markup is the possible future availability of better autoformatting software.

--Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• A major statement on the notion of involving a proposed "Son of Autoformatting" is here. Tony (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Points removed from year markup disadvantages

• The search box is readily available as an alternative to low-relevance links, which can also be highlighted and/or piped by "gateway" links in the "See also" section to avoid cluttering the text.

This isn't a disadvantage of year markup, it's a discussion of the workaround to issues caused by overlinking - so I've removed it from the list. It's also poorly-written, colliding separate points in one sentence. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Complicates the syntax for editing pages.

This poorly-worded assertion (what "syntax" is made more complicated? Are you trying to say that the text editing area is cluttered by extra brackets? If so, say it) is entirely unproven. Also, as Ckatz comments, so does the syntax for linking, bold and italic formatting, templates, headers, and every other bit of Wiki code. — Hex (❝?!❞) 03:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

right: every bit of markup complicates editing - but this RfC is not about those other types of markup. the question of whether date-linking/markup is worth the added complication is important to some of us. please discuss the wording instead of deleting the point, okay? thanks Sssoul (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Sssoul has said it well. Tony (talk) 08:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the onus is on you to explain how linking to a year is somehow of such fiendish complexity that it merits being claimed as a "disadvantage". — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

it doesn't have to be "proven" to be "fiendish". some editors perceive the added complication & instruction creep as disadvantages. even if you personally disagree, those are among the perceived disadvantages. Sssoul (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"some editors". — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hex, if you're seriously challenging me to list names you'll have to be more direct about it; until further notice i'll assume that's meant as a form of "humour". Sssoul (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad assumption. I'm telling you to back up your entirely unproven assertion. Just because this isn't article space doesn't mean you can just make stuff up and expect people to swallow it. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

i am certainly not making up the fact that some editors perceive the complication & instruction creep as disadvantages - that's why the point is listed under "disadvantages" and why this discussion is taking place. Sssoul (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Clerk

If that isn't a statement by Ryan (it looks similar, but not identical, to some statements made by Ryan as a proposed neutral statement), it needs to be clearly marked proposed wording. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

rationale please

the proposed wording includes the statement "For instance, specific day-month articles may be linked in articles about holidays that fall on the same day every year, e.g. Christmas Day, April Fools' Day, and Cinco de Mayo." could someone please explain what the perceived value of links to 25 December, 1 April and 5 May is in those articles, or provide a link to where the rationale is given? if the main aim is to visually highlight the date in such articles, that should be specified as one of the perceived advantages of linking. Sssoul (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• This comes from Dabomb87’s Summary of the Date Linking RFCs, on which Locke and others had arm-wrestled with Dabomb87 and they had arrived at an amicable agreement. I know of no other source of specifics to draw from for examples. Please take it up with Dabomb87 and work with him to revise his analysis. Setting aside the issue of whether that exception is “cool beans” in either your eyes or mine, it is (supposedly) what the community wants and the meaning of that wording in the proposed guideline is exceedingly clear and needs no further clarification for the community to vote upon it. Greg L (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

  P.S. Please also remember: The analysis that Dabomb87 did is one of the “community consensus” as evidenced by the past RfCs; it is not supposed to be a place where editors argue to make a case for why something is or is not a good idea. If you go to Dabomb87 to argue the details with him, please keep the objective focused strictly upon capturing and memorializing the best possible interpretation of the community consensus. Greg L (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• I’ve alerted Dabomb87 ([1]) that you might be contacting him. Greg L (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• I think he's not around much until 20 March. I completely agree with Sssoul, that it's rather insane to link "April Fools' Day" to "April 1" as a slavish matter of course; the option of doing so is just another compromise the community seems to be making. I suppose it's worthwhile to keep the peace. Tony (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks for responding. i'm not trying to argue anything - i simply want to know what the perceived value is. i did ask on Dabomb87's page a while back but no one clarified it. it seems like someone should be able to state what the rationale is. Sssoul (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I don’t see the value either. I don’t look forward to reverse engineering Dabomb’s analysis and wading hip-deep into the old RfCs. Dabomb (bless his heart) did all this for us and worked hard to memorialize it all into a well-organized summary. But he also did some arm wrestling with Locke over the results and he certainly might have caved and added concessions that can’t be supported by the RfC results. Rather than second-guess Dabomb, I suggest we give him an opportunity to explain why that bullet point is in his summary. I might add that wording like this in Cinco de Mayo:

Cinco de Mayo is always celebrated in Mexico on May 5.

…doesn’t seem to me to meet the test of being germane and topical to the subject matter. If the user clicks on the link, they will be taken to a list of events that have precious little to do with Mexico and Cinco de Mayo that they didn’t already know before they clicked on the link. I suspect that bullet pointed exception in Dabomb’s summary is in error. Not sure.

I’ve added the {clarification needed} tag back in as a reminder to ourselves that this needs to be addressed. Thanks, Sssoul. Greg L (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

for the record, here's where i asked on Dabomb87's talk page. Sssoul (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• I see. This specific issue had already been discussed and the details of the past RfCs examined to see if the vote comments solidly support making the exception. The comments don’t, it seems. The wording in the new RfC question has this fundamental principle as the basic litmus test

…should not be linked unless their content is germane and topical to the subject, sharing an important connection with that subject other than that the events occurred on the same date.…

Clearly, allowing links such as this in Cinco de Mayo:

Cinco de Mayo is always celebrated in Mexico on May 5.

…would have been a non sequitur that ran flagrantly contrary to the fundamental principle unless it was clearly declared as “an exception to the rule.” Seeing such a small number of editors who suggested that this exception be made, and since it so clearly runs foul with the basic principle that links should be germane and topical, I’ve struck it.

I think leaving it off will result in greater support in the RfC. Greg L (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I will admit that I put it in there largely to compromise at the time. I will revisit that. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've started categorizing the responses to the month-day linking section at the detailed RfC at User:Dabomb87/Drafts. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Two queries

First:

"Theoretically, other forms of date markup could be adopted that would not create links to articles – for example {{24 March}} or {{datetemplate|24 March}} – but would serve to designate the dates as dates."

What on earth does it mean? Designate for the readers, or for the collection of metadata? Why would one want to use a date markup that did not link to date articles? If I am confused, I can't imagine what visitors to this RfC would make of it.

Can someone please fix up this text so the meaning is clear, especially for non-experts? Otherwise, I'm going to remove it in a few days' time as a dysfunctional part of the RfC.

sorry if it's unclear. my point is that the previous version wrongly stated that "date markup means linking to articles". "linking" and "markup" are not synonyms and it's misleading to phrase this as if they were synonyms. i trust we can make the wording clearer without making it sound like date markup = linking.

a couple of reasons someone might "want to use a date markup that did not link to date articles" are mentioned prominently in this RfC: to enable autoformatting or to facilitate the gathering of metadata. neither of those functions require linking, and the same examples of theoretically-possible nonlinking markup are mentioned in the section on autoformatting below. Sssoul (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Second:

Less seriously, but still an issue, is this:

"Clearly indicates which strings are actual dates (as opposed to quotations of dates.)"

"Actual" is not a good word, since dates cited in the main text are every bit as real (or not real) as dates within quotes. I can't work out what point is being made here. Dates in the main text turn blue, setting them off from the surrounding text, but dates within quotations are smoothly integrated into the quotation text? If this is it, can the advantage be made more explicit? Otherwise, readers will glaze over and skip on without understanding your point. Tony (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

i don't understand this either. Sssoul (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

PS Hex: yes, you're right about removing the hyphen in "date fragments". Tony (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"What links here" pollution

One of the "Advantages" of month-day linking is: Populates "what links here" pages with possibly relevant data. I went to the March 14 page and clicked on What Links Here. I was able to click "next 500" 18 times, over 9000 pages link to March 14. (Filtering to Articles only reduced this to 13 "next 500" clicks.) The links are listed in the order they were created. So if a reader clicks "what links here", they can peruse 9000 random order pages that may or may not have anything enlightening. How is this more useful than pressing "Random article"?

The same goes for year linking. I selected 1931, the year in which Hope Lange was not born. The 1931 What Links Here shows about 6000 random order pages. I can't see where this type of linking finds any relevant data.-- SWTPC6800 (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

would/will inconsistency

CKatz, although we are on opposite ends in this debate, as I've said before, I do admire your editing skills. However, can we have "would" or "will" consistently in this subsection?

"What happens if autoformatting is accepted?' If the community expresses its desire here to re-introduce the concept of autoformatting, a new system will be developed, based either on a modified version of the existing software or on a new markup or template scheme. It would allow for a default format that would be displayed for IP users in each article. As with the existing system, all dates in articles would need to be marked up with the autoformatting syntax."

I believe Sssoul was perfectly right to reinstate a form of the subsection in which the ramifications of an opposite result are explained. Thanks for that, Sssoul. Tony (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Agree. The effect of a yes vote means this *would* happen. That is correct. “Will” assumes a certain vote outcome. Greg L (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sssoul's text avoids the "never" suggestion, so that is OK. (As I said, this does not reflect a desire to restart the debate if it fails... this has gone on long enough!) --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

is the related question of whether the community favours bot/script-assisted removal of the markup being left for a separate RfC? Sssoul (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Fairly disclosing contemplated techniques

Ckatz, regarding this edit and your edit summary, where you wrote “honestly, we keep it simple as we don't know. I'll leave the "default" reminder though.”:

This is unacceptable. The burden is not on our “Against” statement to provide the community with a clear picture of what is being contemplated. I did borrow your “we don’t know” verbiage from your edit summary and add that to the Background statement. So it now reads (with my underlining only here)…

Effect of a “Support” consensus. If the community expressed its desire here to re-introduce the concept of autoformatting, a new system would be developed. The developers don’t know exactly what sort of technique might be offered in the final analysis, but as of the time of this RfC, techniques under consideration would have dates be surrounded with curly brackets {{March 11, 2009}} or with square brackets [[March 11, 2009]], or with some kind of template, such as [[templatename|March 11, 2009]]. As explained above, some sort of tag would establish a default format that would be displayed for IP users in each article. It would be necessary for all dates in articles that use this scheme to be marked up with the autoformatting method.

This is completely true and factual. You and I might have the general idea of what the developers are contemplating, but unless we properly disclose it here, many would-be participants would have absolutely no idea. As I alluded to in my edit summary, leaving the technique completely unaddressed leaves it all in the voters’ imagination (“some sort of magical goodliness from Goodville”), when in fact, the developers today do have a basic idea of the techniques that could be used. If Locke doesn’t want to have a vote on a “specific implementation” such as UC Bill’s, there certainly isn’t going to be a wholesale burying of the nature of the techniques currently being contemplated.

If you, Ckatz, know that there are still other techniques that are truly now being considered, let us know what they are and we’ll add it/them to the list. But just saying what amounts to “then some sort of cool-beans technique would be developed that you’ll really, really like” ain’t gonna fly. Greg L (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Nothing is going to move forward until one of you guys steps up to the plate and finishes the Statement for. You don’t expect me to write it do you? (Even though I did, by borrowing liberally from a post by UC Bill). If we can’t find a volunteer, we will just have to go with what’s there; it is, after all, closely based on what a developer, who is intimately familiar with this business, wrote. Greg L (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no "burying" of the techniques; your text, sorry, just confused the matter. If we put that in, then we would have to also detail how there are several developments - Werdna's and Bill's for example - that are well under way. I can live with the restored "if no" text, but not the needless complexity. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• We both know what “ needless complexity” you are really trying to address here. “Pay no attention to that needless autoformatting complexity behind the curtain.” Absolutely unacceptable. Not wanting a vote on a “specific implementation” like UC Bill’s “Son of autformatting” and getting a vote on the “generalities of autformatting” may not be used as a pretext for sweeping the *inconvenient truth* of reality under the carpet. No way. What is known about the possible technical implementations under consideration will be fairly disclosed. Count on it. Sorry. Greg L (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Greg, you know full well that I have been honestly working to write neutral language as best as possible under the circumstances. Using code to mark up dates is no different from using any other wiki code (such as headings, bold, and so on) and the language I have used presents it in a neutral manner. I'm not trying to hide anything, and please note that I have also specifically avoided any fluffy positive text about autoformatting in the background statement, saving that instead for the "Statement for" section. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well, now that I’ve got fair disclosure of what is truly being contemplated in our Statement against, I’m not feeling the need to “go postal” on this. However, you and I both know that proper place for fully describing the true nature of autoformatting and what is being considered is in Background statement. I see no valid reason whatsoever to not disclose the various options under consideration. You call it “trying to be neutral”, but being neutral does not include dropping the disclosure of salient facts—even if they look like a belly-full of hassle factor that is likely to turn off voters. Locke knew the community would reject “Son of autformatting” and it doesn’t take a mind reader to understand why he didn’t want to run “specifics” of “Son of autformatting” by the community in this RfC. There will be no sweeping of important information under the carpet. Greg L (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you've put it in the "against" section, as I truly feel that is more appropriate. (That way, I can use the "for" section to demonstrate how DA will bring about world peace, which you can counter by showing how it causes cancer in the process... ha, bad joke I know.) I realize that we disagree on this, but I do feel that including the description as it was actually unbalances the text by making it seem more complicated than it actually is. The reality is that only one method will be used, and that applying it is no different from applying any other formatting. If we say "it could be method x, y, or z", we'd also have to then say "using it would be identical to using other Wiki coding" to balance the sentence, and that just leads to a bloated, hard-to-read paragraph. We want the text to be clear and direct, leading only to answers to the core question. No waffling about "I'd pick x, but not y" or "hey, what about method aa instead". --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It is essential that the scale and consequence of a system which would arise from a successful for vote be understood. As all dates in an article (and eventually WP) will have to be coded in order to maintain consistency, it will be necessary for scripts to be redeveloped to recognise the greater range of date formats considered by the current auto-formatting syntax. For example, a date such as {{9-12 July 2000}} will have to be accurately detected and reformatted to July 9-12, 2000 (based on various preferences and templates). Note that this issue is independent of a user's registered status. In addition, the extra resource requirements of eventually coding all dates on WP have not been analysed (the List of compositions by Handel page has over 700 dates, none of which are coded—so I'm more than a little curious to see if the load time of that page will change when every date gets coded).
Let people voting for for never be allowed to say "ooh, ahh, we didn't realise that would happen". Incidentally, I include the developers here (based on the three year saga at Bug 4582: Provide preference-based autoformatting for unlinked dates where over 70 comments were made after the 2008-11-04 version was installed), as the system implied by a for vote is more complicated than anything previously implemented. There must be some statement of confidence made that the system arising from a for vote can be implemented in a timely and workable manner.
 HWV258  22:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

HWV, to respond to your questions:

• If page load were an issue, we would have heard about it long before this given the vast number of templates, infobxes, headers, footers, script and so on that each page uses. From what I recall, the line from the developers is to not concern ourselves with server load as it is not an issue. (Please check with Werdna/Bill etc. if you want verification, but that is what I recall from other template-related discussions elsewhere.)
• The question of script development and use has never been an issue when you've been discussing Lightbot's scripts for removal of date formatting, so I fail to see why it should be an issue going the other way.
• As for the ability to produce a system, Werdna has already installed one solution, and Bill has done a significant amount of development on another. They both seem to think that DA is a viable option, so we should not be making a mountain out of a molehill with regards to the implementation. Again, the developers can speak to this far better than you or I. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well, you have points worth considering, but we'll never really know until what is being proposed has been fully specified. For example, date ranges have never been part of the current date auto-formatting [[...]] scheme, however with the mooted {{...}} date coding strategy they will need to be; or a mess will be generated (documented elsewhere in these parts). I've only asked for page load times to be considered/investigated (remembering that some pages have enormous numbers of dates that are currently not coded). Perhaps the Handel page I mentioned above could be added to a test set as a real world case study? Hmmm...comparing script behaviour in regards to the removal of square brackets around existing dates versus the recognition of all current WP date formats—hardly the same thing (or concern). I'm not calling into question WP's programmer's abilities—rather I'm calling into question two things: whether we need a technical solution to the "problem", and whether the specification of what is being mooted is truly known (and any honest appraisal of the situation reveals that it is not known). Without even a basic functional requirements specification, I'm not convinced that WP's programmers have a true concept of what they are about to walk into ("into the valley of death..." etc. etc.).  HWV258  06:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

CKatz, fair point about page load: it probably is not worth considering at this point. Lightmouse 's scripts (I presume you were referring to the human) for removing DA (among many other improvements, of course—never monothematic) are, frankly, child's play compared with the complexity of producing the kind of system that is being proposed here. And even then, it took many months for the issues to be ironed out, with much patience, skill and sensitivity on Lightmouse's part. I'm not saying that Bill et al. don't have patience, skill and sensitivity: what I am saying is that I sense an apparently casual indifference among proponents of the complexities and pitfalls that await any such development. It seems to be more like "all aboard, boys, giddy-up and let's get this sucker up and running". That is the pathway to causing much disappointment and distress in the community and among yourselves. Lemons are easy to get up and running (witness the old DA system); good systems are incredibly hard to produce.

"..., the developers can speak to this far better than you or I." Um ... I believe HWV258 is a developer—a professional one who has had much day-to-day experience of the difficulties of writing workable programs over many years. We are lucky to have him/her in our midst. Tony (talk) 10:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead para for Month-day linking

Month-day linking is the process of using linking markup (double square brackets) on an adjacent day and month - for example [[24 March]] - which creates links to specific date articles, such as 24 March. Using linking markup on dates has been widespread (although not universal) on Wikipedia since 200X both in order to create links to such articles and for other purposes (most notably autoformatting - see below).

This needed a few corrections (who is using hyphens as interrupters?). In particular,

• I've removed some repetition.
• Parentheses around the examples is clear enough, isn't it? That is what the style guides mostly use.
• Can we have the order of month-day the same as in the title, just to minimise the chance of confusion?
• Are their purposes for this practice other than linking and date autoformatting? I can't imagine what. Is this about meta-data? Since we don't agree on the status of the meta-data and searching arguments, they should properly be in the for and against statements.

More contentious will be the need to negotiate the current practice: I can't see how it can be claimed that month-day links are "widespread" on WP—They've been discouraged for some time in the style guides, and Featured content, for one, is bereft of it. This claim needs to be toned down; I'm unsure exactly what will be acceptable to pro-link people. Here's an attempt:

This is the use of linking markup (double square brackets) on an adjacent day and month ([[24 March]]) to create a link to a specific date article (24 March). Month-day links have been used by many editors on Wikipedia since 200X, to create links to such articles and to autoformat the elements – see below)

Tony (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

i don't agree that the title of the section can be replaced by "this" in the first sentence, or that "parentheses around the examples [are] clear enough". and did you want the examples to be in month-day format? how about:

Month-day linking is the use of linking markup (double square brackets) on an adjacent day and month – for example [[March 24]] – which creates a link to a specific date article, such as March 24. Month-day linking has been used by many editors on Wikipedia to create links to such articles and/or (from 200X to 2008) to autoformat dates (see below).

what year was the autoformatting system introduced? Sssoul (talk) 05:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure it was 2003. I'm willing to go with 2004, because it probably was not until then that it had spread like cancer. Tony (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

But this RfC wouldn't even happen if...

The edit comment for this edit was: "change "will attempt to come up with"; open to tweaked wording, but this RfC wouldn't even happen if Bill/Werdna/etc. were not certain of being able to make new DA work". (emphasis added by myself.)
Whoa there. I've no intention to denigrate any programmer (being one myself), but that is a huge assumption, and is not necessarily fair on WP's programmers. Part of the problem is now in trying to discover exactly what the functional requirements of date formatting and linking are. It's not that technical solutions couldn't be found for parts of the problem, it's whether technical solutions can work together for all aspects of the problem. We risk a "solution" that is so complicated as to place it beyond the reach of the average editor. One way to ensure a complex solution is to tack-on piece after piece over the next few years as the complexities of date coding slowly dawn on the community. Now is the time to figure out the issues.
Please remember that a three year development cycle still led to a raft of questions on the current date linking system, and ultimately to where we find ourselves today (please see my recent post here for more details about Bug 4582).
 HWV258  06:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed: the sorry saga of bug4582 is testament to the difficulties—both predictable and unpredictable—that lie in the way of developing a complex system for a complex community. 4582 was simply about decoupling DA from linking, a doddle compared with what is now being contemplated. You'd think that if it were all as straightforward as it being depicted here, 4582 would have been resolved in a jiffy. But nope, it was mired in uncertainty and technical issues that were never resolved. It just doesn't add up, does it. Tony (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Alternate year linking proposal

I added another proposal, which seems to indicate a possible consensus in regard the detailed RfCQ3. Adjustments would be appreciated keeping the spirit of the proposal in mind, and clarification that such links are not mandated except in unusual circumstances. (Furthermore, even my phrasing doesn't include the general consensus that, for example, 1970s should link to 1975, unless that appears elsewhere in MOSNUM.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Ryan_Postlethwaite/Draft_RfC#Statement_for

Is there any chance this can be worked on quite quickly? I'd like to advertise it to the community soon so the quicker it's finished the better. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll try to get to it ASAP now that the intro section is stabilizing. Any thoughts on how this will be advertised to the community? Watchlist notice? (It would be nice to get a wide-ranging input, rather than just the usuals.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no way we'll be able to get a watchlist notice prior to opening. I plan to advertise on the VP, CENT and a few other noticeboards so we can get a few neutral people to look over the RfC and make any suggestions prior to it going live. Obviously, when it goes live we'll pop it on the watchlist and just about anywhere else we can! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be very hard to locate truly "neutral" people: how would you do so? Merely be asking whether they are neutral WRT all three questions? It remains to be seen what they say, but their status seems unclear: "look over" with respect to what? Tony (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Ryan_Postlethwaite/Draft_RfC#Proposal_to_add_to_WP:MOSNUM_2

Is there any chance that this could provide a specific mention that years such as birth dates and death dates, or year of company establishments should not be linked to? This would allow the proposal to be specifically dissenting of proposal two below it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if it helps, but see here for background information concerning the linking of birth and death dates.  HWV258  23:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Flogging this horse again? Ryan, you realise that we're going to have to produce statements for and against. Before, it was a simple binary yes/no (and/or comment) on a single proposal; now it is immensely more complicated, and will be long and messy. Why? OK all, getting ready to make those statements. 500-word limit? Tony (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ryan, I added the specific prohibition here. Greg L (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

• Ryan, why in the world would we even bother with Proposal 2? Please examine (just scroll through it) this simple, non-loaded RfC question on this issue. The question was simple and the community consensus was a landslide. Why would we make this new RfC needlessly more complex? It makes no sense. The new RfC should be taking the best information from all the RfCs and put it together into a simple question intended to illicit maximum support (and lack of ambiguity) in the results. Based on your quick perusal of that old RfC, do you see a snowball’s chance in hell of the community responding favorably to Arthur’s #2? How can such complexity in a new RfC be justified given the clearly expressed community consensus? Greg L (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to add to WP:MOSNUM #2

Ryan, I’ve moved this here. As you know, the original proposal was first posted to your talk page here, where you pronounced Excellent, that's exactly what I wanted. [2]. I expect the same hurdle for a proposal from the other side, particularly when it flat conflicts with what is already there. If it goes back, I expect it to be only by your hand, as was the case with the original. Greg L (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Arthur: Check out the amount of interactive working I did with Ryan here on his talk page before I finally came up with something that A) Ryan liked, and B) he posted to the Draft RfC. It is not too much to expect that you abide by this same procedure. Greg L (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

---

• Comment: Arthur Rubin, your wording is wholly in conflict with the first first one, which was crafted to be in maximum conformity with the past RfCs (1, 2). Try reading the vote comments in those RfCs. The community consensus is clear. The point of adding proposals here is to make a good faith effort at coming up with RfC wording that is designed to elicit the broadest support in the upcoming RfC, not treat this as a venue for your POV-pushing. I might also add that I didn’t put this the above wording here; Ryan did after I had posted the proposal on his talk page and he announced [3] that it was exactly what he was looking for.

  I ask that you withdraw this yourself rather than create discord with proposed wording you know is in conflict with prior wording. What you’ve done here is not helpful. If you seriously think that this wording should appear here, I suggest you do as I did: go pitch it here on Ryan’s personal talk page and see where he goes with it. Who knows? He might think “Cool beans! Arthur Rubin really captured the community consensus with this wording!” Greg L (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

By "I didn’t put this wording here", I think Greg is referring to the first box (which ends "in that year"), not the one immediately above. The problem with this spurious addition is that now we're going to have to produce statements against and for both of these. It is going to become messy and much longer, and the launching will have to be delayed. Is this what people want, when the idea of linking years of birth and death was pretty much rejected in a previous RfC? Tony (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect they were rejected in prior RFCs due to the weighted wording chosen specifically by you. The 2nd RFC (with the less biased, but still (according to you, anyways) flawed, wording) came up with a more mixed result for linking chronological items. I personally think this RFC should start from the original status quo and attempt to determine where the community wants to go from there. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• That’s why I suggested reading the vote comments. All that makes it quite clear editors weren’t somehow hypnotized into group-think by clever RfC wording that made them all say things they didn’t really believe. Greg L (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Reading the comments is helpful, but still shows (at least in RFC2) a rift between those who want to link such dates and those who don't. Certainly it's as "no consensus" as one can get. Hence why it's best to start over, present a balanced RFC without weighted comments, and let people decide for themselves. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Who do you think you’re trying to kid? Do you think no one is capable of actually looking at this simply worded RfC? The results are a landslide. And since you jumped up and down, waving your hands about what exactly “not normally linked” meant, this highly specific RfC with detailed wording was also a overwhelmingly in support. The only reason you keep on insisting that the RfC wording is biased is because the outcomes show the community doesn’t in the least want what you desire. Give it up. Greg L (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not trying to "kid" anyone. RFC1 was a joke, any results from it are inherently invalid because Tony dreamed up the questions on his own. RFC3 is, likewise, a joke, because those questions were dreamed up entirely by YOU. Obviously others felt RFC3 was a joke, hence the lack of activity on it (fractional in comparison to RFC1/RFC2). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware that because one person "dreamed up the questions on his own" a RfC was automatically "a joke". I wonder if the 190 people who submitted "Oppose" votes (to the first part of RfC1) thought it was "a joke"?  HWV258  05:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• If they'd been aware of the child like behavior engaged in prior to and during that RFC, they might. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps they simply stuck to the issue at hand, and voted with their heads.  HWV258  05:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Again, the questions were inherently biased (this has been noted by multiple editors, and at least one uninvolved admin who attempted to close the discussion before it got carried away). It doesn't matter what people thought when they were being fed misinformation written by Tony. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Will you tell the 190 people who voted "Oppose" (over 96% of the total votes) on the first point in RfC1 that they didn't have the intellectual capacity to decipher "Linking: Years, months, days/months, and full dates should normally be linked"—or shall I?  HWV258  05:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and Cole, everyone would appreciate it if you didn't personalise. I seem to crop up in almost all of your posts. It would be good to stop accusing (child-like, dreamed up). It doesn't do your case any good, either. Tony (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You crop up all the time because your misbehavior is the #1 reason we're still dealing with this. Perhaps you should reflect on that when you wonder to yourself about how we got here... —Locke Cole • t • c 14:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I won't tell them that, but I'll happily go tell them they were misled by Tony if you like. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• I’m curious, Locke. What will your excuse be if/when you get creamed in this new RfC? Greg L (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm glad you think this is a game still that you must win at all costs. It shows others watching this from the sidelines the real attitudes of those pushing this. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Concern

I'm not sure I follow Tony and Greg's concerns up above. You both seem to want to be having it all your own way. Your proposals on wording, your sections and your format. If anyone else makes a suggestion, according to you it's completely wrong and biased. Well unfortunately for you two, that's not how this RfC is going to work. You've both had your say now and your points are in the RfC so please back off and we'll get an alternative position placed on the RfC so the community actually has a choice and everyones viewpoints are given an option. I've got no real interest in the previous RfC's, if they were as set in stone and unambiguous as you say then we wouldn't be here now. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 06:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a totally unacceptable comment from someone who is supposed to be neutral, both at the related ArbCom hearing, and here. You have claimed that you are hosting this RfC as an independent party. You own neither this page nor this RfC process. Do not tell me or anyone else to "back off'. Your views on previous RfC results are noted, but are of no greater significance than anyone else's here. Tony (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing unacceptable about my comment. Whilst I am remaining neutral on the issues at hand (I don't honestly care which way it goes), it's hard to remain neutral with respect to individual behaviour. All I want is two view points on the RfC, not just yours and not just the pro linking sides. You and Greg are attempting to block every possible proposal being put to the community if it goes against what you want. I said from the start and I'll say it again - this isn't just about one sides views, I want a full representation from all sides so the community can have their say once and for all and I'm not going to let two users hinder that. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• That’s fine, Ryan. It seemed like the venue was becoming a sandbox where any old proposal was being tossed into the ring. Arthur’s proposal makes the voting more complex because instead of a simple up/down vote, there is now a mix. I just wanted to make sure you, Ryan, were happy with this additional complexity; you clearly are and that’s all I wanted to make sure of: that the addition was by your hand (or with your blessing). Greg L (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, I may have over-reacted. However, it has been open to anyone to write proposed texts, and you were rather strong in saying "back off" and stating that Greg and I have prevented other viewpoints—I see plenty of hacking about of the text written by anti-linking people by Cole, Ckatz et al. Some of this I believe is most unfair, but we have compromised. Are you going to tell them to "back off"? Tony (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What about bot activity?

if autoformatting is not reintroduced, does the community support bot/script-assisted removal of the markup? is that question being left for yet another RfC or should it be included in this one? Sssoul (talk) 07:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be best dealt with in a second RfC. This RfC is dealing with what the community wants/doesn't want. Implementation can be dealt with straight afterwards. For example, if the community want autoformatting we can look at the different options available after. If the community supports a very strict interpretation of what should be linked, we can look at automated removal afterwards. Posing too many questions in one RfC is going to lead to a lesser response from the community. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 07:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't just ask the community "do you want autoformatting"" The answer probably depends on what features would be included and what the schedule would be. If you ask "do you want formatting for non-logged-in users according to a template placed on each page showing the format for that page (in a few months), perhaps followed by non-logged-in users being able to express individual preferences (in a few years)" you might get a different answer than if you just ask "do you want autoformatting"? --Jc3s5h (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. Perhaps the best way to go about this would be to break the autoformatting down into sections. The whole concept of autoformatting might be too much for one question. Although perhaps it would be good to get an overall view in this RfC and we can move onto more specifics (only if needed of course, autoformatting might be completely rejected in this RfC) in a second RfC. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Autoformatting must be well-defined. If not, and the bare question "do you support autoformatting" receives a narrow majority, certain gadget-happy developers will develop something, claim it is autoformatting, and claim it is supported by the RfC. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• I was expecting that the subject of bot removal of date links would have to wait because to pose such a question in the first RfC presupposes a particular outcome as to whether the community likes date links. If the first RfC results go as I expect, we may not even need to have a second RfC on bot activity. As long as bot activity is arguably doing edits within the scope of MOSNUM and MOS guidelines, Lightmouse’s activities should be sufficiently regulated by the normal venues for such things.

  We don’t have to have an RfC on everything just because there is a single editor willing to show up on the Capitol steps, pour gasoline on himself, and set himself alight. A nice round of applause is in order for the spectacle, but there is no need for pages to be locked down and admins to get so damned sick of a conflict that they want to issue across-the-board topic bans—and all because of a few editors (or one editor) are quick to reject every clear community consensus as a stacked-deck “gumint conspiracy.” Greg L (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think Ryan is right. Let's see what the results are for these questions first. They may or may not require follow-up. Tony (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Truth in advertising

• How about some “truth in advertising”? This…

Year articles (e.g. 1795, 1955, and 2007) should not be linked on Wikipedia unless the year is particularly relevant to the subject of the linking article; that is, an seminal event relevant to the subject of the article occured in that year. Examples may include the birth and death of a person and the establishment and disestablishment of an organization.

…is disingenuous when it borrows terminology like “particularly relevant” and tries to pass off birth dates as being examples of that. You can put “seminal event”-lipstick on a pig and try to pass it off as a prom date, but really, it’s still a pig. This prom date of yours might look like we are doing a better job of adhering to truth-in-advertising laws if it were revised to say “exceptions” include birth dates, rather than try to say—with a straight face no less—that our 1925 article is “particularly relevant” to Angela Lansbury.

The pro-linking camp seems to have difficulty understanding the “theory of mind” of other Wikipedians on this issue. Examine the vote comments in this, simple, to-the-point RfC. I particularly liked one of the vote comments there. One reads:

Wow, never an easier one. After clicking through the links to find they are basically just trivia dumping grounds I've trained myself to ignore them. They almost NEVER have anything to do with the article. It's incredible to see a frustration that seem unresolvable being resolved. The system works!

And this one speaks to the issue:

I've often wondered why we need to link to dates but I simply did it since it seems to be a tradition. I'm now not linking to dates at all if I don't feel the linked date article will provide further relevant details to the current article, which is almost all the time.

Yet, here you are again, with the same thing. And the outcome will be the same. I guess it’s probably good that I don’t understand your logic and tactics. Greg L (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

could someone who favours this proposal explain the rationale for linking years in such cases, please and thank you - is it to visually highlight them, or ... ? Sssoul (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This was an alternate proposal, as a contrast to the date delinkers, who do treat years differently than other links. My reason is not "visual highlighting", but because (some) readers might be interested in finding out what else happened in that year, and it is appropriate for a "what links here" (and I don't mean micro-format considerations). I'm not saying all years should be linked. In most cases, a link from A to B is placed if people interested in A would be interested in the subject "B", not the "present" state of the article on "B".

I could ask the date delinkers the same thing about their proposal, but I don't expect a sensible answer. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

...thanks - although it sounds as if you consider my question somehow insulting, which is not how it was meant. Sssoul (talk) 08:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider your question insulting — I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I do consider it unfair, as the date delinkers' position also differs from the standards for other links in MOSLINK, even after they've altered that to remove any traces of WT:BTW that was also a guideline of sorts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Year links

I've moved this into a new section, since it has nothing to do with that theme. It is a re-start of an old debate, and one that might have avoided intemperate language. Tony (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This part of the whole debate is just yet another occurrence of the ancient debate between immediatists and eventualists. The immediatists say "year pages aren't useful", the eventualists say "be patient. Look at 1345 as an example of what year pages will be like."

I ask the de-linking side: if your concern is that year articles aren't good enough, why don't you get off your ass and do something about it, rather than removing 99% of links to them and helping to guarantee that the improvements needed will almost certainly not be made for a very, very, very long time? Thousands of our articles are complete garbage, much worse than any year article you could point to, containing mistakes, mangled English, irrelevant rambling or even flat-out lies. If your approach was taken to its ultimate extension, we should have hordes of robots removing links to anything tagged as needing cleanup or a rewrite. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• …why don't you get off your ass and do something about it [and improve the date articles]… 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. Eventualists’ attempts at doing so is like saying we should try to pick up a turd by its clean end: same problem no matter how you approach it. Greg L (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

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 all the links to that article, and explaining in each case how it's not worth linking to a "turd". — Hex (❝?!❞) 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: 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.

  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.

  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. Greg L (talk) 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‑turd article” Greg L (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are ignoring the hard work of others in order to shore up your opinion. Here is a "sea of irrelevant trivia" a year ago; here is the same article today. Let me know when you start deleting the links to it. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No, he's not ignoring the hard work, and his opinion needs no shoring up. Please keep the discussion non-personal. Resting an argument that year article will eventually be sufficiently relevant on 1345 is not going to work. A few observations:

• 1345 is out on a limb; no other year article is like it. Rather than a listy article, it's written in running prose. It has clearly been targeted as an experiment.
• As I've pointed out on the Wikiproject Years talk page, it sucks in much information from the surrounding period, so would be impossible to repeat at this level for all years, unless one invisages large-scale repetition from year article to year article. It is unrealistic. My suggestion that decade articles be written more in this vein caused a little interest at the wikiproject, but has not yet been taken up.
• I have lots of issues with 1345; perhaps we could go into them after this RfC.
• As Greg points out, the detail contained in 1345, even though better researched and more comprehensive than that of other year articles, doesn't change one iota the issue of relevance, compared with the relevance issue in linking the typical listy, stubby, partial year article. If an "event" in a year article is worth linking, it should almost certainly be included in the article itself. So often, the only vaguely relevant item is a single, direct reference to the topic of the article itself: why link 1976 to find just that Benjamin Britten died in that year? We knew that already from the Britten article; if there's another "event" listed at 1976 vaguely to do with Britten (I doubt it), it should be in the Britten article. Year articles are, I'm afraid, just too unfocussed for this purpose. That is not to say that they're not a valuable part of the project: they are indeed, and I intend to contribute significantly to them as articles per se. Let us not forget their Main Page exposure and their intensive linking relationships with other chronological articles. Orphanage is just not going to happen.

BTW, I enjoy Greg's "coarse" references, whether they're directed at me or others: this is not a nunnery, and there's scope for a little bawdiness when experienced editors use it to spice up proceedings. Tony (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

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. 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. Tony (talk) 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.

1. 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.
2. 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?
3. "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.
4. 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 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. Tony (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

1. The text starting with "Currently, one of these formats [...]" is unnecessary and irrelevant to "What is a date format?". There's no need to risk confusing editors who are just trying to learn enough to make an informed decision on the questions before them, and certainly mentioning the lesser two formats is more useful to "What is a date format?" than going on about what may be written at WP:MOSNUM and how it might be written in fixed text.
2. Not puzzling at all, these are the other two formats offered by MediaWiki at Special:Preferences. The argument from the delinking crowd has always been "this is just about MDY vs. DMY", but the fact is that there are two other formats editors may have chosen to see dates in (YMD and the ISO-like format I personally use). So it's not a simple A/B choice, and those participating should be aware of the other date formats.
3. Dynamic Dates is the lesser used name of the feature, but I prefer to be accurate where possible and would strongly object to the omission of this from the RFC. In MediaWiki this is what the feature is called, and we should respect that.
4. When a question results in "no consensus" the default is the original status quo. See XFD discussions (where a "no consensus" results in a "keep", not a "delete"). The question of using auto formatting has, for all intents and purposes, resulted in a "no consensus", so our starting position should be that date auto formatting is in current use, and the goal is to either keep using it/fix it or stop using it. That it has fallen out of usage at FAC is not surprising considering the same people who frequent MOSNUM and push for delinking also seem to frequent FAC discussions. I'd try to compromise on this, but I've been bitten too many times whenever I compromise something away, so I'll leave it to others to suggest some way forward..

—Locke Cole • t • c 16:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"That it has fallen out of usage at FAC is not surprising considering the same people who frequent MOSNUM and push for delinking also seem to frequent FAC discussions." This is simply not true. Of the involved parties in the arbitration case, as well as several others who have participated in date delinking, only Tony and I frequented FACs with any regularity. If you look at User:Tony1/Support for the removal of date autoformatting, you'll notice that many of the supporters of the date delinking activities were FA editors; here are a couple names: Karanacs, Finetooth, Dank55, TonyTheTiger. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(1) I'm afraid we're going to have to have some mention of the broader situation of why date autoformatting was used at all. Some WPians will not understand. You seem to be insisting that the more obscure date formats be mentioned, but not the big picture; you seem to want to censor any mention of what the style guides have recommended, and what, basically, has been followed on WP (two standard formats). This is not an RfC on everything you choose to include that does not suit you in MOSNUM, MoS and LINKING. (4) Status quo: Have a look around you, and observe that DA has been dropped in all the key parts of Wikipedia. Cole, you will object to any consensus that goes against what you want. The community very clearly said it does not want to go back to a norm of DA. See the RfC. I don't think your fellow pro-linkers would disagree with that consensus. If they did, why are they putting so much effort into trying to persuade us to accept a "Son of autoformatting" here? We do not accept this distortion ("the current system"): it clearly is not that. I suggest "the original system" as a compromise. Tony (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(2)

Date linking: 3O

I think we need a third option; there should be no specific wording relating to date links, leaving the standard guidelines from WP:LINKING (or wherever it's moved to) intact. I don't really want to complicate the issue, but it was brought it up at the RfAr, and there seems no consensus that the "standard" wording is not appropriate. Unfortunately, both sides probably agree this is a change in the wording, so would need consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, don't you think that would leave it contentious? If nothing is done, we'd be no better off. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This page move has seemed to encourage a blow-out in the scope and complexity of the RfC. This is most regrettable. Hardly anyone is going to support an extreme "link always": this has been clearly decided at previous RfCs. I thought this RfC was to determine nuances that may not have been covered in previous RfCs? It was quite long enough already. Tony (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was referring to a different third option. That third option was Ryan's idea. Mine is the one presently (more-or-less) installed at Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll#Initial question. Would you mind refactoring your comment to an appropriate section? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but then the other comments here seem to need to go elsewhere too. Move mine if you think it's worth refactoring this whole section (otherwise, please give it a clearer title?). Tony (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Question about markup vs a monolithic autoformating solution

I've somewhat deliberately stayed away from this page for a while, but wanted to make one point which I hope helps refine the proposed poll. In the autoformatting section, I'd like to suggest that we break out two proposals. Proposal one is whether we want to leave markup around dates relevant to the article, which does not modify the date in any way (except to remove the markup). This would allow the metadata to remain without offending anyone with links or formatting. Proposal two is that we want to leave autoformating on as described in the current section. dm (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on the proposal? If possible, would you be willing to work on making it firm and sort out the wording? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if it would help. I believe UC Bill originally proposed this, essentially putting in a patch which turns off the date formatting and linking, so that the dates can continue to look like [[April 1]] [[1900]] when editing, but when reading (regardless of prefs or ip/registered), you would see April 1 1900. It would instantly end all of the conflict over link removal, but leave the metadata intact. My personal ideal is to put templates around all dates, much like the convert function, but this would be enough if people agree to it. dm (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It's getting very large and complicated ... We have argued against the value of metadata in the Statement against the general notion of date autoformatting. People are going to be confused if more and more technical choices are piled on. This is beyond the ambit of the original idea of the RfC. If people say "yes" to the general notion of date autoformatting, I believe that is the time to ask such a question. (I'm unsure I understand it fully myself, as worded here.) Again, this new page seems to be inviting anyone to tag on their pet proposals. This needs to be discouraged, or at least talked through clearly on this talk page first. Tony (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Fair enough, it might be too complicated. Ryan, if the question about autoformatting is to determine if there is any interest in further exploring autoformatting later, in a second poll or to never talk about it again, then my question becomes even more pertinent. We could turn off date linking and autoformatting without any more effort on the part of the delinkers removing links, if that's the right thing to do. Personally, I disagree, but so be it. dm (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Discuss Anderson's "Initial question" first, please

Anderson has added a pet issue of his that I don't fully understand. It was lobbed straight into the opening position at the RfC without prior warning or discussion. Its relationship to the rest of the RfC is quite unclear. The "general rules that apply to all other links" take quite a bit of explaining (see MOSNUM, MoS, and LINKING). I have relocated it to this section so that it can first be explained and discussed.

Initial question Do you believe that date links should be subject only to the general rules that apply to all other links? (Some links are subject to special rules in Wikipedia:Linking and Wikipedia:Manual of Style, but most are not.)

Tony (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with Anderson on this issue. The question of what special rules should be applied for date fragment links should be preceded by resolving the question of whether any special rules should be applied for date fragment links. Ryan seems to agree that something of the kind should be there, although he may just be being agreeable.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

i wouldn't be able to respond to that question. what exactly is it driving at that isn't covered in the rest of the RfC questions? Sssoul (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Call me dumb, but I still can't quite see what it means. Arthur, if someone says "no", what does that mean they think? If they say "yes", what does that mean? What are these general rules that apply to "all other links"? Are they encapsulated somewhere? I'm genuinely confused.Tony (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

← What about this:

Initial question. Do you believe that Wikipedia:Linking should specifically mention when to link and when not to link dates and years? Or is it sufficient that they be covered by the same rules which apply to all other links, namely:

Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, it is generally inappropriate to link:

• [...]
• terms whose meaning would be understood by almost all readers;
• items that would be familiar to most readers, such as [...], and dates.

In general, do create links to:

• relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully (see the example below).

Since we used to link all full dates for autoformatting, a footnote could be added for a limited time period (e.g. 12 months) after the sentence ending with "dates" quoted above, reading, for example, It used to be recommended to link all dates containing both a month name and a day number in order to enable date preferences; this was deprecated in late 2008.

--A. di M. (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Need linked essays to clarify specific statements in the proposed poll

I find myself bewildered by two statements in the discussions of the purported advantages of month-date linking include two statements (apparently many others also find these bewildering, indicated by the fact that the first of these is flagged "clarification needed," and there are opposing statements indicating that the nature of the metadata mentioned in the second is not been specified):

1. Clearly indicates which strings are actual dates (as opposed to quotations of dates.)

2. Simplifies automated processing of article text (i.e. the gathering of metadata).

The poll process could degenerate into discussion of the meaning of these items (and perhaps others). To avert this, it would be helpful to add links to short essays that explain/discuss the arguments summarized in these statements. I don't know whether such essays exist -- if they don't, I would hope that the exponents of these positions can create essays before March 30. --Orlady (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, a few people, including me, have already asked for clarification of the meaning these two very statements, but it has not yet been forthcoming. I have no idea, in particular, what "actual dates" are, versus "quotations of dates". Better wording here, on the spot, would be preferable to linked essays. Tony (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

i propose removing the point about "actual dates as opposed to quotations of dates", since no one has turned up who can clarify what it's supposed to mean. Sssoul (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Imperfectly worded, but the intent seems clear: the argument is that we should autoformat dates when they refer to the date directly, in Wikipedia's voice, but not when they appear in quotations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

... but the statement in question is listed as an "advantage of mark-up", not of autoformatting or of linking. thanks for rewording it, but a] if it's actually about autoformatting or linking it's in the wrong place, and b] it's still not clear what's "advantageous" about it: who is it who relies on markup to see whether or not dates are being quoted - bots? if this point is simply an elaboration of the point about "gathering metadata", it should be merged with that one - for example:

Simplifies automated gathering of metadata by designating strings that refer directly to dates (as opposed to dates appearing in quotations, which would not be marked up, or coincidences like "In June 19 planes were shot down").

Sssoul (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

update: all right, since no one seems to object to this, i'll change that part. Sssoul (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it's an advantage of mark-up: it's an (artificial) way of telling direct from indirect discourse. I don't think it's a real advantage, but it's not my argument. Please stop trying to edit claims you do not understand nor agree with; that's no way to present them fairly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

smile: like you, i'm not convinced that my understanding/wording of it is flawed - but okay: since there's still disagreement, i hereby renew the request for someone who perceives this as an "advantage of month-day markup" to state clearly what it means and what's advantageous about it. (and by the way: quotations are direct discourse, so if "telling direct from indirect discourse" is the aim, contrasting "referred to directly" with "in quotations" is not very apt.) Sssoul (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Summary question

The fundamental question here is "do we need to have any special rule about linking dates, other than those which apply to any other link?". This will probably receive two different Yes answers, from the minority who link we should normally link dates, and the other minority who think we should link none, but the structure of this poll will permit this. Recasting this so that treating dates like anything else is the Yes answer may be worth the trouble. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps another proposal that states that dates should be treated like any other links and used almost wherever a date is stated? That would make sense in my opinion as it gives the community just about all the options. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a third proposal into both the year section and month-day section. Basically, it states that they should almost always be linked. This gives the community an extra option (although I personally doubt they'll choose it). Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This needs discussion before it's added. I don't even understand it if I'm being honest :-S I'm not too sure it adds anything extra if I'm being honest. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It's intended to be simple. We don't need more language on linking dates; we need less; I would oppose Ryan's third proposal on this ground, just as I oppose the others. All we need to say is one of two things:

• We support date autoformatting and linking for that purpose (I doubt this is consensus, but it is possible.
• We used to support date autoformatting and many dates are still linked for that purpose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry PMAnderson, but I feel that this leaves things far too contentious. It may seem like a simple solution may fix this, but I think everyone needs exactly when to link dates spelling out. I'm going to remove it for now, but we can carry on discussing it and wait for more input. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that, although it's new (within a week) to these discussions, the question of whether there should be any date-related language in WP:LINKING needs to be brought up. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it is an option which rational editors would need to consider. (Whether there are any rational editors left is another open question.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• I would hope the fact that we're all here answers that question - it obviously isn't clear enough at present so we need additional clarification. That said, if people really think it's need, perhaps we could start with the question "Do you believe date linking should be subjected to special guidelines compared to other types of general links which are all covered in Wikipedia:Linking as a whole?" Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• The present problem on WP:Linking is that two editors have insisted on having a special rule for dates, and have revert-warred against a tag noting that this language is disputed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• Ryan is of course free to oppose this idea; but I should like to see if uninvolved editors can be persuaded to endorse silence or a note we do not agree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• PMAnderson, I've changed your initial part to a very simple question which I believe gets to the very root of what you were suggesting. I think it's important to be as simple as possible. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Simplicity is a great good. If someone sees a way to invert the question so that yes means an absence of special rules, I would be grateful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I did something along those lines, although I made a muddle of the question. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes you did some what :-) I'm going to revert it back for now because normally links are subject to general guidelines not any specific guidelines - the question now reads as if many different types of links have specific guidelines. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Tried myself, but Ryan's wording may be better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Nope, looks good (maybe the wording can be tweaked slightly to read better but you've got precisely the right idea with it). Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes, much better. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry that I haven't see this section until now. Does it refer to the "Initial" question that I removed and boxed above for further discussion here? If so, as Sssoul and i have already said, it's quite unclear. I too, would not know how to answer it. Please see my questions above. Tony (talk) 08:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe this to be evidence of Tony's bad faith:
  • Tony does support a special rule on linking dates: that dates and date fragments should never be linked, so do some other editors.
  • Locke Cole and some other editors support a rule that dates should routinely be linked.

  If anyone can clarify the wording on the assumption that Tony does have real difficulty understanding this phrasing, they should feel free to do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

In Locke Cole's defense, I have never seen him defend routine date linking, but he is definitely a proponent of date autoformatting. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This question will provide an opportunity for him and others to explain which they support, which may clarify things. I don't think a position for routine linking needs defense; I merely happen to disagree with it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

objection to poll title

The poll asks essentially two questions: date linking and auto formatting. As such, it is misleading to call the poll "date linking", particularly since a minority of editors regard date links to be useful. Mostly it was recommended and done previously for formatting reasons. Suggested alternatives:

• Date coding poll
• Double square brackets around dates poll
• [[date]] poll
• Date formatting and linking poll

—EncMstr (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the last option. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup, likewise to be honest. Dabomb87, if I move it will you change all the links? I'm about to pop out. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I can. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I got them all. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, many thanks Dabomb87 for doing that. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! —EncMstr (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It is the best choice in the list, but should have been "Date autoformatting and linking", surely. And probably the other way around, since that is the order of the questions. Date formatting is already covered in MOSNUM (national connection, stability, etc) and does not seem to be at issue here, although the concept needs to be explained in the background. It's no big deal, though. Tony (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Autoformatting

Once voting starts, I'd be inclined to choose the middle path. Link them when relevant as with everything else, provided everyone gets the chance to see dates formatted as they prefer. There's where the problem lies. The against proposal says it's too complicated to link all dates. It wasn't. Most dates were linked until someone stirred trouble with some discussion and caused dates to become unlinked. But that can be overcome.

What I don't understand is why autoformatting would require any special markup at all.

Dates can only be written in a limited number of formats, all of which the developers can encode for. No link brackets, no template coding. Just the date itself, and perhaps some optional coloring to show if the displayed format differs from the original on the page. Everyone happy and we can simply employ common guidelines:

• Link when relevant.
• Format the date per spelling guidelines, along with the local variety of the article subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacGyverMagic (talk • contribs) 22:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Byron Vibber, one of our chief developers, has objected to this as dangerous coding. He is cautious, as I recall, about fiddling with the format of unmarked text as possibly abusable.

In addition, there are circumstances (like direct quotations) where we certainly do not want autoformatting. Not all of these can be solved by <nowiki> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Anderson on this matter (BTW, it's Brion, and he's the Chief Technical Officer of WikiMedia). MacGyver, to respond to a few specific queries: what is "relevant" has been a major source of contention; the proposed texts do at least spell out a few examples to provide the gist. Using "spelling guidelines" was a major proposal at MOSNUM a while ago, which did not end in resolution. To start with, Canadians who use international format would be upset. I think MOSNUM sets out a reasonable tripartite guideline now—don't you agree?Tony (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Also agree with Pmanderson on this, it's unlikely the devs would support something that scanned text for date formats because of the potential for it to misfire or (shudder) be exploited in some way. Any autoformatting solution is likely to require the dates be marked up somehow (be it with brackets as we do now, or some XML-style tag like <date>April 1 2009</date>, etc). I do agree that marking up dates is not complicated at all, and has been something Wikipedians have done for the past six years nearly without running in to problems. I also agree that being able to see dates as we prefer is not some huge insurmountable problem we can't resolve, in fact it's pretty easy and we should pursue it. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

All anonymous user prefer DMY, right?

One of the objections to the prior date auto-formatting system was that anonymous users didn't benefit. They viewed dates in the format as written in the article. It appears that this has been addressed by changing the defaults (as shown here) so that anonymous users will see DMY formatted dates. This is a significant change from prior behavior, but is not covered in the background statement or elsewhere in the poll. I think the poll needs to be up-front about this proposed change. -- Tcncv (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This change would be so stupid that I think it's safe to assume this is just an experiment. I can't believe that anybody wants to offer DMY as the default format even for US related pages and to users in the US. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The solution that makes the most sense is to check for EN-US vs. EN-GB as the user's browser language for non-logged-in users, and base it off of user preferences for logged-in users.-Jeff ^(talk) 14:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a way to detect that via Javascript (I honestly haven't researched it enough), but the thinking right now is to make this a setting that can be changed and stored in a cookie (then used on all future visits until changed again). —Locke Cole • t • c 14:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The only thing dumber than that would be hard coding dates as static text which can't be reformatted or parsed. Oh wait... Anyways, what you seem to have missed is that a new magic word would allow pages to default to one format or another, with some agreed upon default being in place for articles which don't state a preference. So for US articles, assuming DMY was the site wide default, one would override that and set it to MDY. Also, this is likely a stop-gap solution; the goal is to use client-side Javascript to dynamically reformat dates depending on a preference. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, about as dumb as hardcoding dates in a printed book. And I know exactly what you are going to reply, I am so tired of this nonsense. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It was not intent to start a debate on what methods were "dumber" than others. That tone is not productive. My point was that the date formatting demonstration is set up to autoformat dates as DMY for IP users, which is a change from the current "as-written" (no preference) behavior. If this is the intent of the proposal, the background section should explicitly state as much. For example, "For unregistered (IP) users, autoformatted dates will be displayed in DMY form, such as 15 January 2001." It might even be better to separate out the question of the format preference for IP users, since some might favor preference based autoformatting, but not a default autoformatting for IP users. -- Tcncv (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This will be dealt with in a second implementation poll after this poll has concluded. At the moment, we simple want to know whether we should even bother with discussing autoformatting. If the community wants it, we'll look into ways it could work. If they don't, then we can drop it completely. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

So what if the result of the second phase is "we want autoformatting that honors the express preference of non-logged-in readers" but that is not technically feasible? The question in the first RfC should not ask people if they want something that can't be done. --Jc3s5h (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we're not giving any options at this stage with regards to formatting. With regards to the second phase, we'll contact the developers first and only include points which are feasible. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean "we would contact". There's a sense here (and now on the page) that a second poll will be necessary. This seems to predict a result. Tony (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This is already an additional poll; if it results in no consensus as several of its predecessors have, why should a second poll be necessary? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Background questions

I've written three questions which, in my opinion, would directly address the "heart" of all this dispute. Anyway, I am neither sure of whether they would be within the scope of this poll, nor of their precise wording. The draft is currently located at User:A. di M./Questions; feel free to edit or discuss it. --A. di M. (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Order of questions

Hello all... been out of the loop for a few days, so I'll have to review what has been under discussion. However, one thought that occurred to me over the weekend: we should reorder the poll to put the "autoformatting" question first. For one, it is perhaps the most contentious question, but (more importantly) it is currently buried down at the bottom after a long and involved series of questions about linking. My thinking is that we want a good range of responses; people who hit the long list of linking questions (which will grow even more rapidly with responses) may well time out before they even get to the DA question, whereas the DA question section is not going to grow at the same rate. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

At first thought, I have no objection to this suggestion. Tony (talk) 06:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

At least the question on whether some system of autoformatting is desirable. If there is no consensus for or against that, as is at least possible, the rest of the poll is largely irrelevant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, since the proposed replacement systems also provide ways to turn on/off date/chronological item links via editor Preferences (while also providing a way to force links where a link is intended). I seriously wonder if we shouldn't just put the auto formatting question forward by itself first, and if that fails, then continue with the additional questions of when to link (which are less contentious, but would still need final resolution if auto formatting was rejected). —Locke Cole • t • c 19:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how there's been no objection, I've reordered the questions per the above. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Tony (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Autoformatting - statements for/against

After reading the "Statement against" for the first time, I have to ask: are editors allowed to state simply wrong opinions as facts in these statements? I was half tempted to add "Every time you auto format a date, God saves a kitten" to the "Statement for" after reading the comments expressed in the "Statement against" (particularly the ones regarding "Date ranges"). The statement notes the work done by UC Bill (and even links to it), but three sentences later extols the harms of date ranges (despite this being fixed in UC Bill's test site). There's also a lot of misrepresentation: demands for "standards" or "specifications" from the opponents of the system, but all the effort is placed at the feet of those doing the actual work. UC Bill went to work addressing a number of the common criticisms from the MOSNUM regulars, and it seems his good faith efforts are being used as fodder to insist any new system would be impossible to implement or fundamentally flawed. Thoughts? —Locke Cole • t • c 12:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly they can be stated if they're clearly wrong. Perhaps you could elaborate so we can discuss the individual points? One thing I have noticed in this whole area is that often one side believes that the other is outright wrong when actually from a neutral perspective I can see it's merely a difference of opinion. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well here's two points:

1. Under Development risks it is stated "Date ranges—impossibly clunky under the old system—would be a significant challenge.", and yet earlier in that same paragraph UC Bill's test site is linked to, which (from that main page) you can see there is a Date ranges page which proves this "significant challenge" is false (or at least misleadingly stated as being a "challenge"; that work is complete AFAIK).
2. Under Laborious and complex, well.. the entire thing comes off as trying to scare editors away from supporting any such system because of the syntax. Yet we've used the traditional wikilinking syntax for this since 2003 and so far as I'm aware no major complaints have surfaced to say this is a burden (at least until now). "New and casual editors" aren't usually concerned with formatting (sections, wikilinks, bolded and italicized text, etc), so this shouldn't be some exception to that tradition either.

I'll confess the second point is more opinion based, but the former point is a simple factual misrepresentation; Date ranges are not a "significant challenge". —Locke Cole • t • c 12:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ: whether date ranges are a challenge or not is opinion based. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

UC Bill's work has made autoformatting date ranges possible, but its syntax can still only be described as 'impossibly clunky'. It's even more convoluted and confusing than the present method. As if it weren't confusing enough already to have to link the year as a separate entity even though it's part of the whole autoformatted date, now the proposal is to link the day separately too. The average non-technical editor could not be expected to understand and use this syntax correctly. It's a recipe for an even worse disaster of overlinking and inappropriate linking than we have now. And it doesn't address the case of editors who prefer YMD format at all. This is not an acceptable solution or even close to one. It's an excellent example of why it's appropriate to describe date-range autoformatting as a 'significant challenge'. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"Impossibly clunky"... Look. You can't say "such and such doesn't work" and then complain and attack proposed fixes because they don't meet some undefined criteria/specification that you're holding it to. If you want it to operate a certain way, say so, and we can move forward with reasonable discussion. But simply saying "it's impossibly clunky" without offering constructive criticism (that isn't of the "this fixes a problem nobody has" variety) is unhelpful and misleading in an RFC IMHO. Please stop moving the goalpost. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The point in all of this of course is that no one has been able to define the location of the goalpost.  HWV258  22:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. First, the "test page" referred to above (previously "demonstration" page), is neither of these two things—it provides no test and no demonstration: it is merely a vague and inaccurate wish-list. Since my complaint a few weeks ago about the dashes wish-list, for example, UC_Bill has had a go at trying to fix it up so that it might follow the most basic WP guidelines. But it's still wrong. "18 January–19 February 2008"? Nope: "18 January – 19 February 2008" is required. It's not rocket science, and is clearly spelt out in a number of places—see Dates at MoS, for example, and at the style guide for the WikiProject MilHist, where date-ranges are central (for battles, among other things).

I see no mention of the WP requirement to avoid redundant repetitions in dates (not even mentioned in the wish-list); for example, not "January 4 – January 8, 1980", or, as we used to see sometimes, "January 4, 1980 – January 8, 1980" (the only way it could be done with the original DA), rather than the short and simple "January 4–8, 1980". The old system was "clunky" because it could manage date ranges. As Chris points out, the new syntax is still clunky: nor is there any guarantee that what editors would eventually have to key in to make it work, or whether the system would in fact be able to generate date ranges properly.

This is a good demonstration of the myriad ways in which such programming can go wrong, and is highly likely to, without our knowing. It is further evidence of why WP's editors should not surrender their current control over simple, easy-to-write-and-read fixed-text dates in their articles. We have finally seen off the old lemon; editors do not want a new one. Hanging over it all is the inescapable fact that there is no problem in the first place. That is an argument that the proponents of a new-fangled system have totally failed to grapple with. A personal obsession with fiddling with simple date displays (no mention UK/US spelling, I note) risks causing a lot of disruption to our editors and readers. I also see no objection to the age-old plain, fixed-text display of dates after your signatures; there are scores and scores on this very page. Doesn't bother you? Tony (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"that work is complete AFAIK"—and yet I don't see a single comma on that page (properly formatted US dates). In addition, there is no example that demonstrates whether spaced en dashes are handled (in date ranges).  HWV258  02:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Brion Vibber quote

On a related note, I realize that the "for" and "against" sections are meant to be more opinionated; that was the primary rationale behind my cleanup edits on the introductory statement. However, I am concerned that the final line in the "against" section - quoting Brion Vibber - is leaving out a significant part of what he said. His actual comment was:

"My personal recommendation would be to remove all date autoformatting and let a sane manual of style recommend the fairly standard international English form, eg '4 December 2008'. Of course that's too simple and obvious for Wikipedia."

As I read that, it seems fairly obvious that he was saying that he would remove autoformatting and then format all dates in one style. This differs significantly from the positions held by both the "for" and the "against" sides in this RfC. However, as currently quoted in the "against" section:

"My personal recommendation would be to remove all date autoformatting ... Of course that's too simple and obvious for Wikipedia."

it makes it appear as if Vibber only wants to remove autoformatting, without mentioning the single-style format at all. I think that if he is to be quoted, then the whole quote should be used so as to accurately reflect the context he intended. Thoughts?--Ckatz^chat_spy 21:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but I would have thought that the full quote comes down heavily in favour of the "against" side. Why would any sort of date coding be necessary if only the "English form, eg '4 December 2008'" be used? The "against" side isn't of course saying that US formats couldn't be used, but surely the point being pushed by the original quote is that a non-technical solution is possible (dare one say, preferable).  HWV258  01:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ckatz's query over the Vibber quote. No, I though about that carefully, since I'm fussy about quotation marks. Vibber was expressing two different points in one sentence. There was no sense that his favouring the dispensing with DA was dependent on tampering with the MOSNUM rules for underlying date formats. In addition, as HWV258 says, it hardly helps your case to have the other bit included, does it. Tony (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Tony, you say he is expressing two different points in one sentence, and that they are not dependent on each other. What proof do you have, then, that Brion's "Of course that's too simple and obvious for Wikipedia" refers specifically to the DA thought, and not instead to the "use only one format universally" thought? One could interpret the statement in a number of different ways - obviously, since we just did - but your selective quoting of his comment does appear to take some liberties. (Vibber could be saying removing DA is the "too simple" choice, he could be saying that using only one format is the "too simple" choice, or he could be saying that removing DA and using only one format is the "too simple" choice. (For all we know, he might be strongly opposed to the idea of removing DA without changing the mixed-format MOSNUM tradition.) Which is it, and how do we know short of asking him? --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

i propose leaving out the "too simple" part of the statement. the sarcasm of it will to many readers seem inappropriate to this context, and it doesn't add anything of substance. Vibber's statement "My personal recommendation would be to remove all date autoformatting" is strong, clear and (along with a link to the original context) sufficient. Sssoul (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sssoul, I believe this is a good suggestion. Tony (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Losing the sarcasm is appropriate, per Sssoul's comment - but it still doesn't address whether or not Brion is being misquoted. As explained above, he could support each option individually or only as a joint move; you simply don't know if he would support removing DA if it means keeping the existing DMY-MDY mix. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ckatz; the quote seems like it has been manipulated to support something he may or may not be supporting. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Essays are not policy

I just removed the following sentence from the statement against autoformatting:

Furthermore, per WP:Why dates should not be linked, there is a distinct advantage to having all registered editors see the exact same date format everyone else sees.

"Per" is pseudo-legalistic language implying that whatever follows it is official. Unfortunately, WP:Why dates should not be linked is an essay, not policy (despite its imperative title), so this sentence needs to be rephrased to clearly show that it only represents an opinion.

As an additional point, there is no need for bold yelling text when a pair of quotes will do. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Leave your hands off it Hex. Who do you think you are?? Neato misrepresentation you have for this section heading: “Essays are not policy”. We never said or implied any essay was a policy. The essay, if users click on it, has the standard “this is an essay” hat tag. If you got a problem with our Statement against, take it up with Ryan. But stop weighing in and editing our Statement against as if you have the wisdom of an uninvolved admin necessary to decide what we can and can’t say and how we will say it. Because you are, in fact, and involved admin, your judgement as of late has serious shortcomings, and your edits are flat-out cheating. Greg L (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Your use of the word "per" implies strongly that the essay is policy, which in fact I wrote immediately above here in this section.

Funny how Hans Adler agreed with me, then; the changed wording you reverted was his. My edits to your text consisted of removing your ranty, frothing-at-the-mouth-style formatting, which I'm going to remove again. I'll leave it to others (Hans maybe?) to explain to you what you are evidently incapable of comprehending. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I note how Ohconfucius' first edit to this page since his two-week block expired was to edit war, rather than either engage in discussion here or attempt a compromise, as Hans did. Well done. I look forward to your further contributions being of similar quality. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hex, god bless you for your kind words. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I userfied Greg L's essay to his userspace, but he now appears bent on edit warring to keep it in Wikipedia: space. I don't believe the Wikipedia namespace should be polluted with the essays of (largely) one contributor. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• As an aside, you will note, Locke, that the admin, Xeno, who first moved that essay into WP-space has stepped in to put a stop to your vandalism. Your assertion that the views of the essay “largely represents the view of one editor” is a lie. I see your new vandalism to Wikipedia. Your disruption has to stop. Greg L (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, I did not move it into WP-space, I simply moved it from a subpage of WP:MOS onto its own page in WP space (i.e., it was already in WP space, I just relocated it). This was/is not an endorsement of its habitation (to which I have no prejudice), and I see an MFD has been initiated on the page, which is probably an appropriate way to decide where it should live. –xeno (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I hope the MFD is able to proceed regardless of Greg L raving about "disruption" and "vandalism" both there and here. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well, pardon me all over the place for seeing a “speedy miscellany for deletion tag” (“This miscellaneous page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.”) and jumping to the *rash* conclusion that Locke was asking that it be deleted. Greg L (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• That's not a speedy deletion tag. That's a notification about a miscellany for deletion discussion. And had you read the linked-to discussion you would see I was not requesting outright deletion but instead that it be userfied. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• 

  Greg L wishes you peace and harmony with our future edits.

Greg L (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

My gosh, the edit wars are getting more stupid by the day. Why don't we just reword? "Furthermore, as it is explained in WP:Why dates should not be linked, there is a distinct advantage to having all registered editors see the exact same date format everyone else sees." or something along those lines. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ain’t it the truth? As to your suggestion, that’s the way I originally had it but Hex took it upon himself to eliminate the “shouting”. So I moved the bold to the lead, where it takes the form of a rubric, in order that I please him and make our statement, better comply with his wishes (that’s the last of that B.S., Hex). Besides, now that I think about it, I prefer that the bolding be in the rubric. Greg L (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop this stupid edit war. The changes that are being made are so insignificant they matter not one bit. I've reverted Greg's editing of the for statement back to where he reverted Hex. The edits are getting extremely pointy now. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not making any further changes to that section, since I have no desire to further interact with Greg L's evident ownership issues. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well, it’s nice to be treated with the same courtesy we’ve been affording you all this time. Until I made my two edits to make a point (the exact same sort of edits you did to ours) did you see me assuming I was somehow qualified to decide what was appropriate for you to write in your statement? You should have known better. Reciprocity please. Greg L (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• I understand Hex's frustration, see above where I outline some of the mis-statements of the "Statement against". I'd really like to see these addressed (otherwise I'm convinced I should just add "Every time you auto format a date... God saves a kitten" to the "Statement for" since we're apparently in the business of making things up as we go along...). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• I understand why you write the things you do. Greg L (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• "I'm convinced I should just add 'Every time you auto format a date... God saves a kitten' to the "Statement for"". Yes, why don't you do just that – sounds like a mighty fine idea. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What about other types of chronological items?

Centuries, decades, months of year, days of week? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• I see no need to add extra complexity at this juncture. I expect the principle that all links be germane and topical to the subject matter, and the community consensus on that principle (as evidenced by the upcoming RfC results) will allow a “common sense” (*sound of distant thunderclap*) application of the principle to the items you are discussing. If the same few editors don’t go with the flow, there are formal procedures to avail ourselves if required. Greg L (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Anderson's question back again without discussion here

Again, it's been shoved in without discussion here. The intended meaning, the relationship to the rest of the RfC, and the wording are all unclear.

Do you believe that date links should be subject only to the general rules that apply to all other links? (Some links are subject to special rules in Wikipedia:Linking and Wikipedia:Manual of Style, but most are not.)

This asks whether there should be any special rule for linking dates, whether or not we autoformat. Those who want to autoformat, but don't care whether the autoformating provides links, may wish to consider answering Yes. Conversely, those who want a special rule making date links more common than other links, and those who want a special rule making them less common or prohibiting them, should both answer No.

Although there is explanatory text, I find it very hard to make sense of. The issue is: what would this question determine beyond what people are declaring in the subsequent SIX questions (three on day-month, three on year links)? For yet another question, it had better be providing useful information. Can someone tell us what?

The explanatory text, in any case, is not well worded. I would copy-edit it if I knew what its intended meaning was. I don't. Tony (talk) 06:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Tony, as all too often, lies. The discussion of this question began in #summary question above, where we reached a mutually agreeable wording. Tony then objected and began revert-warring. It is not beyond the reach of conjecture why Tony should not want this question asked; the answers to it may reveal that he and his half-dozen fellows are indeed alone on one extreme. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

likewise: i don't understand the question, or see what purpose it's trying to serve. the "explanatory text" seems to be saying "anyone who supports or opposes X should answer NO", which means the answers will clarify nothing. and apparently a YES answer is supposed to mean someone wants autoformatting - but that question is already covered in the poll. so what is this question for?? Sssoul (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Is this going to be yet another blowout RfC, the RfC to end all RfCs?? I see the question comes from WP:Linking, but is a bit nonsensical. Once upon a time, dates were just dates, linked like other links. That all changed when the community saw fit to let a group of techies loose, and use the link mechanism to autoformat dates for several years, the argument to extract "metadata" from same makes them even less like 'other links'. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If I'm being honest, I believe this has the potential to leave even greater confusion. If the response was that date links should be treated like any other link, we'll be further back than we are at this stage. I'd leave it out. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is consensus that we don't need special rules on linking dates, then the existing, and uniformly disputed, special rules about linking them would be removed from MoS (unless the present system of autoformatting also has consensus, which I doubt). At this point, there would be no justification for mass delinking or mass linking, and we could all go do something useful instead, leaving the question of what links there should be in a given article to those who write it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Pmanderson, aside from auto formatting, the answer to this question would nullify the other questions entirely. I've seen it said again and again during this dispute that the community, by and large, doesn't care about date formats. If that's the case, then we shouldn't have a guideline (MOS or otherwise) dictating such a standard (guidelines are supposed to reflect community norms, not the other way around). This question gets at that central issue. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

For once, most of us are in agreement. Anderson is welcome to construct a separate RfC with proposals concerning the status and role of the style guides (preferably after all of this). It is inappropriate and unhelpful to pile on a largely separate major issue to an RfC that is already groaning under its own weight. Tony (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to pile on, I had to read this section multiple times and I'm still not sure I fully understand what it is asking. Do we need this if we've got the more detailed questions just below? Karanacs (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do; otherwise I will be repeating four times why I oppose adding anything to MoS on date linking at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Background statement

• What's this supposed to mean? : "Logged in editors would also be able to override when dates are linked (never, sometimes and always)." I mean, will the date links flash in that case, or something? 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. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps that could be explained in the statement then? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• I was trying to keep it simple and not burden readers with learning every in and out of the replacement system (but still providing enough info to let them know that it's about more than just date format; there are tangible benefits for those opposed/supportive of linking as well). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It might be better to move the three statements back down to the end of the poll, with links. We are unlikely to reach consensus on what the cases are in less than six days. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding “Logged in editors would also be able to override when dates are linked (never, sometimes, and always)” : that statement doesn’t seem to be supportable. How would such a thing be possible? And if you guys can answer such a detailed question, we’d be talking about a very specific technology. Yet you guys insisted on only “generalities” at this point, did you not? You want to have it both ways here(?); where we are talking “generalities” if it’s something you know the community will utterly reject. Yet, whenever it seems to suit your needs, you seem to be able to get awfully specific, and promise that the future offers artificial intelligence, hot coffee in the morning, and free gold from the programmer gods raining from the sky. You can’t have it both ways. Greg L (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Come to think of it, go ahead and leave it in. Greg L (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've actually already removed it, as part of an effort to keep the focus on the date formatting. If a mention is needed, it is better suited to the linking questions that follow (rather than in "Autoformatting"). --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed wording change

Do you believe that date links should be subject only to the general rules that apply to all other links? (Some links are subject to special rules in Wikipedia:Linking and Wikipedia:Manual of Style, but most are not.)

I propose that this question is turned around, so that you answer "yes" if you want a special rule and "no" if you don't. At the moment you seem to have to answer "yes" if you don't want something, and "no" if you do, which, even taking into account the explanatory note that follows, I believe is counter-intuitive and apt to lead to confusion. In fact, the first part of the explanatory note itself seems to be confused about the question. If I'm asked "whether there should be any special rule for linking dates" then I answer "yes" if I want such a rule, not "no". Matt 86.146.46.62 (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC).

At the moment you say yes if you want the simpler system of no special rules. The last wording proposed in the other direction seems to be Do you believe that date linking should be subjected to special linking guidelines, unlike other links covered in Wikipedia:Linking as a whole? which is somewhat more complicated. If it is to be turned around, the wording should improve also. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but to me your proposed wording, or something close to it, is clearer. I'm voting "yes" for a positive thing, and "no" if I don't want it, and not tying myself in mental knots about double-negatives. How about Do you believe that date linking should be subject to special linking guidelines (rather than just being covered by the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Linking)? Matt 86.137.136.254 (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC).

I disagree on which is simpler, but I would be content to invert if another one or two editors agree with Matt, especially if the wording could be improved. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

I propose that the text "although that seems to be disputed in the article" under "Month-day linking: Proposal #2" be deleted and/or a different example chosen. I don't think this comment adds any value, and it's likely to just raise unnecessary doubts in the reader's mind. Matt 86.146.46.62 (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC).

Go ahead. I can't think of any good examples. (It's mostly my text, and I can't think of any good examples.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Biased wording

The proposed wordings for year linking seem to everywhere presuppose that year links aren't relevant in most cases. If I happen to believe that they are "relevant", or "useful", in most cases, even in the examples given, then my only option seems to be to support #3, but the wording there is not right. I'm not supporting linking "regardless of the relevance", I'm supporting relevant linking, but it's just that I disagree about what is "relevant".

In fact, I don't personally subscribe to this view, but I do think that the wording of #3 is biased. It more-or-less seems to be saying "Year articles should be linked almost always when they appear, even if there's no point."

(I think it's a similar situation for month-day linking.) Matt 86.146.46.62 (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC).

You have a point. Perhaps remove "regardless of the relevance of the linking article to the year article"? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just added a fourth proposal that may address Matt's concerns. (It is more or less identical with a proposal I made somewhere in this vast debate about two months ago.) — Hex (❝?!❞) 22:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Separation of month-day linking and year linking

The text of "Month-day linking: Proposal #1" includes several references to year linking, which seems odd since the poll is otherwise structured to keep the two separate. Matt 86.146.46.62 (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC).

What sort of Cluster-leviathan do we have now?

Four ‘years’ proposals? What is this(?): an effort to A) make every voter’s eyes glaze over with sheer boredom, or B) to make it so the vote results are so spread out that no clear results can be discerned without yet another RfC, or C) this is the product of a simple failure of the ‘other’ side to get their act together to even the slightest degree?

Our group managed to put forth one proposal that we expect to receive broad support. The ‘other’ side can just get their act together and cobble a single counter-proposal together on years and months to throw into the ring. This RfC has grown to absurd proportions of complexity. Greg L (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2009 (U

Agreed. This is getting ridiculous.  HWV258  23:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's start thinking more of what the community might want, rather than being concerned of what different "sides" are doing. As far as I'm concerned, all four proposals are ones which the community may well consider. They're all different and give different options. I'd also suggest that four isn't that many. As it happens Greg, you (and some of your fellow editors) have a very narrow view of what you want (there's nothing wrong with that at all, it just gives little leeway for more than one proposal) - little or no linking. The other group of editors opinions differ so it's only natural that there will be different proposals coming from them. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, it's not up to you to label anyone's view as "narrow". You have very little idea of neutrality, don't you. Tony (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop twisting my words Tony. I meant narrow in the respect that you have very specific ideas and because of this there's very little leeway to move - I also clearly said that there was nothing wrong with that. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 08:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• (ignoring below melt-down / rant): Very well. Can we keep the limit at four? We—the involved parties and you, Ryan—are all quite familiar with all these nuances and terminology. What we’ve grown here is tending to be quite unwieldily. Greg L (talk)

• Yup, I'd suggest four being the absolute maximum. I'm thinking that perhaps #3 and #4 can possibly be merged, but please leave it for me to look at in the morning. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• My fear is we are running the risk of having to repeat the process again with a run-off RfC. To avoid this, you ArbCom arbitrators should be prepared for the possibility of having to be WP:BOLD and interpret the vote comments if the results are anything less than the landslide/slaughter required to silence (nearly) all objection.

  Really, there has been ample past RfCs to get a good measure of the views of the community on all of this. It shouldn’t take an Einstein to come along to reduce each issue to a binary choice. Greg L (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

But Ryan, this issue is similar to getting a little bit pregnant. You either do, or you don't. For dates, either you don't link and format (e.g. simply entering dates in plain text is a perfectly workable solution), or you start down the path of linking. Unfortunately, and as we've pointed out, you can't go down that path just a little bit. As soon as one little date gets coded, then (for complete consistency) there is no alternative but to agree to: coding all dates; discovering all possible ways dates can be entered at WP; updating rendering scripts to recognise all date formats; implementing page preferences; implementing user preferences; explaining/retraining WP editors to use the new coding syntax, etc.

To match the above Boolean point of view, I'm leaning towards a single proposal: "Dates will be entered as plain text".

I hope that goes some way towards explaining why a realistic approach can be seen as "narrow". Thanks, and cheers.  HWV258  00:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is like saying that "for complete consistency" we should either link all occurrences of the word "Japan", or link none of them leaving that article orphaned. I don't think anyone would agree with that. --A. di M. (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Of course it's "ridiculous" when someone comes up with an alternative proposal to the biased wording (pointed out above by someone that isn't one of the regular edit-warriors on this topic) that you yourselves inserted to distort the existing pro-linking proposals in your favor. After writing paragraphs and paragraphs of tortured prose on the subject of autoformatting, you start wailing and gnashing your teeth when someone adds a proposal of two sentences and all of 47 words to the page.

As usual, it's Greg L howling and foaming at the head of the pack with his sycophants trailing behind. This is absolutely intolerable. — Hex (❝?!❞) 00:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• (well… maybe not completely ignoring you, Hex): You people are fucking pathetic. Since this jewel of prose comes from you, I’m going to add that to my barnstar section on my talk page. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC) (a.k.a. Lobo, the “foaming howler”)

Feel free to tattoo it on your rear end if you wish! I release it to the public domain. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Fine then; I was wondering what to call our group. To make multi-option voting easier, we’ll label some of the proposals with a statement telling the community which ones we’re sponsoring. So we’ll have “This proposal sponsored by the Fuck-tards.” Greg L (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• I must admit, I wondered slightly about user fatigue/confusion and vote fragmentation even with the three-proposal (actually six-proposal) version. I haven't been involved in this debate before -- presumably framing a single pro-date-delinking form of wording and asking people if they support or oppose it has already been suggested and rejected? Matt 86.137.136.254 (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC).
  • It would be rejected as duplicative. Tony did it with a negative phrasing and Greg did it with a positive phrasing which begged the question, but actually had no content. Perhaps a single question would work, but the status quo needs to be carefully stated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Fine, Arthur. Tony’s RfC is horribly flawed. My RfC is horribly flawed. Bad ‘cess be upon them. But you guys have Locke’s own RfC and it has more options than you can shake a stick at (‘should day/months sorta be linked most of the time?’ / ‘should day/months kinda-sorta be linked sorta most of the time?’). Are you going to dump all over that RfC now? There is more than enough RfC results on the community’s views for you guys to be able to pull together a single counter-proposal on each question. There is absolutely no need in the world for us to go back to Heisenberg uncertainty-levels of possibilities at this juncture. Greg L (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• 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. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Quoting you: 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.

  As for your second bullet point, I suggest you not obsess about our proposals; you have plenty on your own plate to worry about.

  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’. Greg L (talk) 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. — 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. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• STOP REFERRING TO THAT RFC AS MINE, GREG L. You are well aware that a dozen editors contributed to its development, and my only action there was to start the RFC when Tony1 blindsided the MOSNUM participants with his totally biased and completely invalid RFC. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well, how about retaining only the question "Do you believe that date links should be subject only to the general rules...?" and discarding the other questions? People who want special rules for date linking are already asked to "indicate what sort of rule on date linking [they] would prefer", which arguably makes it redundant to then ask them to support or oppose specific pre-written suggestions for those rules. And for people who don't want special rules, the wording proposals are all irrelevant or "oppose". If an acceptable majority votes "no special rules" then that's job done. If not, then a "consensus" wording would have to be somehow distilled out of the suggestions, but that would be the case anyway with the existing poll format -- and even more so since these user-written suggestions would also have to be reconciled with the voting on the specific wording proposals. Matt 03:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.136.254 (talk)

Hey, I've got two more proposals I'd like to add to each: that will be four more. Since it's open season, I see no reaon that I shouldn't be able to add them. Tony (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a patch on this...

"I've already deleted all the source code for the patch I'd been developing for the project"—UC_Bill (here).
Not our patch, surely?  HWV258  04:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reworking your previous post. The event that precipitated this is unrelated to the RfC, and many folks are very concerned as to what is up with Bill. However, there's nothing we can or should do about this (nor would it be appropriate) until there is a clearer idea of what is actually happening. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it was our part of the project. The demo page has now shifted emphasis. (Pity we didn't have a functional specification.)  HWV258  04:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If there are going to be EIGHT questions ...

It is ridiculous to ask people to scroll down what will become a HUMUNGOUSLY long page to vote eight times. There is now no reason not to reduce it to three questions, since it is illogical to support the addition of more than one of the options in each question:

• Question 1: The autoformatting (write A or B for the option you prefer, plus a brief comment if you wish)
• Question 2: Day-month linking (write A, B or C for the option you prefer, plus a brief comment if you wish)
• Question 3: Year linking (write A, B, C or D for the option you prefer, plus a brief comment if you wish).

Otherwise, you have to slavishly write opposes for each option you don't support, like this:

• One response: "Support" or "Oppose"
• One "Support" and two "Opposes" (e.g., "Support", "Oppose","Oppose")
• One "Support" and three "Opposes" (e.g., "Oppose", "Support", "Oppose","Oppose")

I think editors will be extremely irritated at such a poorly constructed RfC. If the hidden agenda is to skew the result by turning away people who will smirk at such a silly arrangement, the results will be discredited before the start of the exercise. You have to make it as easy as possible for editors.

I think, also, that each proposal for date-fragment links should be headed with an easy-to-understand key that distinguishes it from the others, but that is a secondary consideration. Tony (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• I wholeheartedly agree. Locke’s RfC had more than enough of these nuanced questions. We run a big risk of obtaining ambiguous RfC results if we repeat that again at this late date. Moreover, it is wholly unnecessary to be so complex at this juncture. Greg L (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• STOP referring to it as my RFC Greg. The only RFCs that were developed in a vacuum are YOURS and TONY1's. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Jeez you can be tedious. I’ll call it what I want. Go wikilawyer somewhere else. Greg L (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Of course we will get ambiguous results. There are many proposals, and no consensus for any of them. This is already clear, except to the fools and the liars. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What's going to happen

Ok, this is getting silly. Some users on this page are turning it into a battleground left, right and centre. I'm going to give everyone who's involved in this dispute (the parties to the case, and a few other editors) till 0:00 (UTC) tonight to edit the pages, then I'm going to request that they no longer edit the talk page or the main page. I want to have neutral opinions from now on, not more of the same sly remarks and name calling. I'll pop a note on everyone's page that I class as involved. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 08:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is unacceptable, Ryan. You don't own this page, or this process—even though your initiative in setting it up seems now to be essential to moving forward. Sudden deadlines are completely unfair. I am in the middle of preparing an easier ABCD format; I do not want to be told at a moment's notice that there is a new deadline only hours away.

I will take the matter to ANI and further if you try this one. You informed us, and we all accepted in good faith, a 30 March start-date (with no assumption that preparation would stop five days before). NO WAY, José. Tony (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC) PS I'd be willing to negotiate, with other parties here, a slightly earlier deadline than 30 March—a settling period. That would seem fair management on your part. Would 00:00UTC start of 29 March be reasonable? Tony (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand what has triggered this reaction from you, Ryan. It should be no surprise to you that there would be sniping and edit-warring here, given that it came part and parcel with the MOSNUM saga. In case you haven't noticed, all this here is already extremely civil and cooperative. So what precisely does this mean- that we have until midnight GMT to edit-war all we like, and you will drop the gates the very next second, and freeze on that version? Please tell me I'm wrong. No, second thoughts, tell me the rationale and your current expectations, as I'm pretty sure what you've dictated will not achieve that end. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to allow editing up until 0:00 (UTC) on 28 March from all parties, then restrict editing to users that aren't involved. That then gives me 2 days to solicit more outside opinions and discuss minor changes with these people. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved user who just stumbled upon this issue at WP:AN/I, I must say that I find your approach unacceptable, Ryan. As noted above, you don't own this poll. You lack the authority to "allow editing" by certain users and not others, and your threat to block users who defy your will is especially troubling.

I don't know why you're treating the 30 March date as sacrosanct. If the poll isn't ready by then, the start should be postponed (assuming that there is consensus to). There's absolutely no need to rush forward in this brute-force manner. —David Levy 13:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the worst cases of admin bullying I have ever seen ("I would plan to enforce this by blocks if need be."—I wonder on the basis of what aspect of WP:BLOCKING or WP:ADMIN?). Ryan, you are supposed to be the head of WP's Mediation process; I presume that you have expertise in the kind of facilitation that persuades editors in highly problematic disputes to resolve their issues in as peaceable a way as possible. There has been little evidence of this; instead, suddenly we are faced with apparently arbitrary dictating of "What's going to happen", and threats to block editors for participating on a page in which they have found themselves involved for weeks. I grant you that it is a difficult page to manage, but you did initiate it of your own volition. That you did so after several parties at the related ArbCom hearing expressed a lack of confidence in your clerking and called for you to step down from that position, has brought a particularly strong need for you to bring to bear all of your talents and attention to the page. I am surprised that you are now playing the role not of a mediator, but an aggressor; I am sure that this is not your practice as head of Mediation (is it?).

I note your statement that "I am willing to allow editing up until 0:00 UTC on 28 March", but I'm afraid it's not your place to dictate. You do not own the space, and it is not an ArbCom matter (you yourself have stated this). Rather, you might have said to all parties "I wonder whether we might agree on a closing time to let things settle: how about 0:00 UTC on 28 March?". People would probably have agreed and been on-board with you, respecting your good management. I'm afraid your aggressive actions have not created that situation. Tony (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Patience, Ryan. I don’t see what provoked your reaction. The number of voting options suddenly (and unnecessarily) grew to unwieldily proportions and it’s been less than 24 hours since we’ve begun trying to self-correct. Perhaps you can helpfully give guidance here to promote this self-correction rather than say “the floggings will continue until morale improves.” Greg L (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

8 --> 3 responses: user-friendly version

I would post it here, except that the formatting would mess up the talk page structure. This simplified design of the two date-fragment questions will save users from scrolling down and down to write five redundant "Oppose" responses and a total of eight signatures. Thus, users will need to enter and sign only the three of those responses that are functional (including the single first response to the DA question, as now). Can you imagine the continual edit-conflicts from eight responses?

The other advantage is that users will see the proposals for each question one after the other, synoptically.

Here is is a sandbox attempt at a simplified structure. I have not altered one character of the substantive text (Advantages/disadantages/boxed text), although I believe some tweaking still needs to be done. If people think that a separate section for comments is required underneath each question, please say so; it seems a needless complexity when people will write comments immediately after they express their preference, as they always do in RfCs. But I don't care personally if a comments section is included for each.

I put in a mock response for each of the two questions for sandbox purposes only. I think these mock responses should be removed if transferred to the real page.

Your thoughts? Tony (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Your proposal looks like a much 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.

  As I alluded to in above threads, 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.

  I think there is no better evidence that there has been enough RfC feedback on this issue than some reactions over on 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.

  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. Greg L (talk) 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? Tony (talk) 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 Masem (talk · contribs), who didn't seem to have a bias one way or the other). Please strike your comment or justify your assertion. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Point noted. You’ve told me what I shouldn’t call it, but not what I should call it. How about “The RfC that Locke jumped up and down and ranted about how it was the best thing since steam power and antibiotics (certainly much better than Tony’s poopy-head effort) and which was actually contributed to by a dozen editors”??

  And I’m glad that you’ve pointed out how that RfC was the product of the collective wisdom of a dozen of you guys. With that many neuron buckets contributing to the design of the thing, there should be gobs of scientific data there from which to mine as you guys advance a single proposal for the community to consider (again). Now get busy. Less “talky”… more “writey”. Greg L (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) How about "the detailed RfC"?
• Actually, I agree with Tony (at the start of this section, not necessarily his later comments), except that, to the exent that this is a "vote", a preferential voting system of some sort should be used. If anyone actually wants proposal 3, they should have an option to express a preference between proposals 1 and 2.
• The date delinkers (which I still think is a good name for a rock band) have been working on pushing their proposal through for at least a year, with some evidence of work on it at least as far back as 2-1/2 years. I've only been looking at this for less than a year, and co-ordinating with others for even less time then that, so I don't think it's fair to demand a specific counter-proposal, other than the status quo ante. Since we, even the date linkers, can't agree on what the status quo ante was, that doesn't seem a reasonable option, either. If Ryan (not the date linkers or the date delinkers) were to make two specific proposals, with input from the respective sides, that would be fair. Requiring the date linkers to agree to a single specific proposal, while the date delinkers may have had one ready for over a year, is unfair. Having Ryan prepare a single date-linkers proposal while the date-delinkers provide their proposal is unfair.
• And, for what it's worth, Ryan asked me to prepare a Month-Day linking proposal #2, after I provided Year linking proposal #2. I'm still not happy with, so I'd even consider suggested modifications from the date delinkers.
• — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Then there should be an understanding on all sides here that if there is muddled results, we might need a run-off RfC. But my preference would be to not have a run-off RfC, no matter how mixed the results. In case no one here has been keeping up on current affairs, the community is fatigued of this issue and many believed—given what they naively thought was amply clear RfC results—that the issue had been settled.

  I would prefer that arbitrators here to 1) grow some spine and, regardless of how muddled the voting mix is, actually read all the vote comments, then, 2) discern what the common ground is in the community, and 3) write a guideline that best embodies the community consensus, 4) post the thing to MOSNUM, and 5) shoot any bastard that complains. Greg L (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• P.S. I repeat my call that unless people here love the feeling of endlessly flogging ourselves on this issue, binary voting on each issue holds the greatest promise for this RfC to be definitive and final. I just can’t fathom how it can be so difficult for the pro-linking crowd to organize themselves and get their act together and advance something they think has a holy prayer of being accepted by the community. That very fact that you guys find this to be such a daunting task speaks to the issue that you guys must have known all along that the community doesn’t like date linking one iota. It’s like selling a refrigerator to an Eskimo: “Well, how about our side-by-side model?” Greg L (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Binary voting on issues on which there are multiple distinct opinions (at least three on both autoformatting, and many on date-linking) is a recipe for meaningless results. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Man; talk about a self-referential, Catch-22 argument… My point is that there is no good reason now, at this late date, for you guys to not be able to shrink the number of options. Do you think our group (anointed by Hex as the “Fuck‑tards”) didn’t have multiple opinions? We managed to coordinate and collaborate behind the scenes and present a single proposal. Then you Keystone Cops take us several months backwards. Greg L (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(Could I just point out that I didn't, in fact, say that? Thanks.) — Hex (❝?!❞) 03:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, an admission that there is a group. Wiki openness would imply the publication of its transactions where we all could see them. The rest of us share nothing but an unwillingness to be bullied by this machine, and so do agree so neatly as the extremist fringe. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• “Ah” my butt. Do you expect me to believe you guys don’t e-mail each other? Why do you think Wikipedia provides e‑mail links for interested editors? And, no, there is no implication that “openness” requires that someone provide you or anyone else with copies of our e-mails. What do you think this is, discovery phase of a civil trial??? And if you guys really haven’t been coordinating via e-mail, then that explains all the cluster‑proposals you guys have been plopping right in the middle of our hiking trail. Greg L (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for more evidence of character. I don't know about anyone else; I certainly have had and sent no e-mail about this; I don't regard it as important enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yup. Explains a lot… Greg L (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

An attempt to refocus the discussion

The above section, except for the first couple comments, is exactly the reason why we don't get anything done here. So, let us stay on the original topic without name calling or rants: What do you all think of Tony's restructuring? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It leaves out the most important questions, and slants the responses to those it does ask by prefacing every question with Tony's views (and his versions of arguments which he doesn't understand). Other than that, there's nothing wrong with it that a drastic pruning wouldn't fix. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Anderson, are you talking about the same thing? On the sandbox page, I deliberately did not change one character of the substantive text. The only change is in the removal of a whole lot of redundant voting and signatures that would be forced on people. Absolutely meaningless edits. Now, unless someone has a good reason, I intend to insert the simpler method later today. I can't imagine why anyone would complain—it does not shift any angle in terms of linking, on purpose ... Tony (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI re: preference-based autoformatting of unlinked dates with the dateformat parser function

It appears that the dateformat parser function is now live, per Werdna's recent code update. Dates wrapped in the "#formatdate" code are formatted without links per user preferences:

• Today is 25 March 2009 ({{#formatdate:25 March 2009}} formats per user prefs, unformatted for IPs).
• Today is March 25, 2009 ({{#formatdate:25 March 2009|mdy}} formats per user prefs, specified format for IPs).

• Today is March 25, 2009 ({{#formatdate:March 25, 2009}} formats per user prefs, unformatted for IPs).
• Today is 2009-03-25 ({{#formatdate:March 25, 2009|ISO 8601}} formats per user prefs, specified format for IPs).

• Today is 2009-03-25 ({{#formatdate:2009-03-25}} formats per user prefs, unformatted for IPs).
• Today is 25 March 2009 ({{#formatdate:2009-03-25|dmy}} formats per user prefs, specified format for IPs).

--Ckatz^chat_spy 18:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Am I missing something here as to what would posses you to make such a pronouncement? It seems you just announced a technology that the community has repeatedly said it isn’t interested in. And you also did so while we’re busy preparing yet another RfC to prove this mood. Greg L (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Greg, don't shoot the messenger? I don't think Ckatz was involved in making that happen, he's just pointing it out. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• OK. Can I shoot you then? Greg L (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I've more often wanted to shoot people who've said to me "don't shoot the messenger" than the messengers themselves. — Hex (❝?!❞) 03:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Was Hex involved in making this happen, either? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Greg, the ability to have link-free date autoformatting is now an active feature on Wikipedia. That's not my wishful thinking, or a proposed enhancement; Werdna's patch has now gone live and is fully functional. In a nutshell, the software has been enhanced to address the creation of links when formatting. That issue was one of the most significant concerns that contributors such as you and Tony1 expressed about DA, so I would think that you would be happy to see a solution to the so-called "sea of blue". Remember, we're here to gather information about what the community wants, and a part of that involves letting contributors know what Wikipedia's software is capable of doing. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Splendid. Then update Background statement that you now have an avocado-colored side-by-side refrigerator to sell to the Eskimos. Greg L (talk)

Just frightening. :-(  HWV258  21:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yep, its Hotel California. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Statements

I see no reason for the background statements to be before the question on autoformatting question. We don't agree on what arguments should be included; or which are valid; we won't by the 28th. Let the polled come up with their own argumnets. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but what?!? There's been no discussion whatsoever for this change, and given the complete absence of said discussion I've reverted your change. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. It seems the closer we get to prime time, the more editors are getting anxious and bold—upsetting the apple cart in the process. How about a lighter touch on things that have been stable for a while? Greg L (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with the revert. I believe the Background and For/Against statements should be before the polling sections.  HWV258  02:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"Planes shot down" example

I've performed a minor clean-up of the day-month "Disadvantages" points. In doing so, I see there's still a "Clarification needed" tag on the "In June 19 planes were shot down". I just don't get the ambiguity. If the opening referred to a date, it would have to be "On June 19,", and most good writers would use a comma after the number for easy reading, although that is not a cause of ambiguity here (occasionally, it is). The whole point is going to confuse readers: what are these "coincidences"? Does that word refer to the juxtaposition of words or phrases? Doesn't apply in this example, which could mean only one thing: "In June". Many users won't get the reference to "quotations", nor the use of "directly" (as opposed to "indirectly?).

I have a simple solution, which would lessen just a little the amount of reading editors have to do: remove Point 2 and the corresponding Point 3 in "Disadvantages", which I have had to add there as a counterpoint. I believe the points are not worth making, but it's either both or neither. Then we solve the "clarification needed" tag issue, too. Tony (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I always got the impression that the "[in/on] June 19" issue was one that more affected software (i.e. robots of some kind), because certainly as you say people resolve the ambiguity by understanding the preposition. I'd venture to say that most bots that look for things in articles aren't sophisticated enough to consider that in their programming. Although of course I'd love to be proven wrong. — Hex (❝?!❞) 03:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

But the point made there has no mention of bots—it doesn't appear to be part of the intention. What is apparently concerns is the potential for ambiguity as human readers read it. Can you come up with an example that truly is ambiguous to the reader? Tony (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"As of June 19 planes had been shot down"? But that is really stretching. Basically, I think it's unlikely. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Tony1, bots were mentioned in the other section where this is/was also being discussed: here. Pamanderson however reverted the version that made it plain that this point is about bots recognizing dates - i don't know why. Sssoul (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What would be wrong with a freakin' comma and with freakin' hard spaces, as in "In June, 19 planes were shot down" or "On June 19, planes were shot down"? This way it doesn't become ambiguous even if someone mistypes the first letter (I and O are so close on the keyboard...). --A. di M. (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

KISS

Why are people making this thing so darned complicated? As a new editor to Wikipedia, I was curious about policy and I went over to MOSNUM to see why editors are linking month and year dates. I found my way here, and I'm flabbergasted about why there are 4 proposals about linking years, and 3 for months. I've read many articles on Wikipedia, and I've found that the articles that I've been taken to when clicking those year and month links are dull, boring, and the information contained in them wasn't applicable to the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia.

Which brings me to my point here. You either (mostly) link dates, or you (mostly) don't. It's completely retarded to have 7 proposals for 2 ideas.SteveB67 (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia incorporates elements of an almanac (according to the five pillars), and that is what those month/day and year articles represent. I think most people figure out the date linking almanac system after clicking on a single year or month/day (that the linked-to articles are just almanac entries for the most part), so it's kind of silly to suggest these links are somehow harmful to readers (they will either learn to ignore them when looking for context specific information, or learn to enjoy them if they browse Wikipedia in a casual manner). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• No, SteveB67 you are quite correct. Well done for instantly spotting what has been blindingly obvious to us (and a heap of others) for a long time now. Remember to vote when the time comes in order to help end this madness. Cheers.  HWV258  06:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• (ec)Steve, you asked a very pertinent question which is better addressed to the powers that be, who unlike us mere mortals, seem to have an unlimited threshold for boredom and appears to wish the entire Wikiverse to acknowledge and appease some individuals manic about linking all our articles to some contemporaneous coincidences. It is a question which I and a great numbers have asked ourselves and have expressed views upon as recently as December 2008.

• Of course, you never said the date links were 'harmful' in any way – and I take issue with Locke's putting words into your mouth to the effect. I also object to him implying that the linking of dates in articles to articles about date is in any way embodied within the five pillars. Wikipedia does not have firm rules comes waaaay before that. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, so for the benefit of both camps and this RfC process, I'm going to put in place the user-friendly version, to which no one seems to have plainly objected. Then, at least, we will know where we are, and proceed to a discussion of why we need so many options. Tony (talk) 06:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have now done so. People have the option to add comments after their selection of their favoured text (by #number) if they want to say more. Please discuss here rather than reverting what I believe is essential if we are to have so many options. Tony (talk) 07:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think a separate, additional, separate, comment section for the editor, (ummm, editors) who haven't seen this before and want to make an additional comment. I have no objection to pointing editors to the RfC talk page, though, but some extended comment section would probably be helpful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• I gathered that the obvious "do you (mostly) want date linking or not?" question has already been asked, but the interpretation of the poll results was disputed, and that is whole reason for this latest exercise, which attempts to exactly resolve the issues that caused the disputes last time and so is necessarily more complicated. It's odd that none of this has been mentioned in the responses to your suggestion though. Have I got the story wrong? Matt 12:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.243.245 (talk)

• It hasn't really been asked, no. According to Tony, RFC2 was fundamentally flawed. According to myself and others, RFC1 and RFC3 were fundamentally flawed (not to mention, disruptive in how they were created by single editors with biased questions). It would be nice if we could ask the basic question of "Do we even want a special rule for date links" so we can avoid the pain of trying to determine what "consensus" is on the finer grained questions. If the community rejects a special rule entirely, then the other questions become irrelevant (and passages at WP:MOSNUM and WP:LINKING will simply be removed or reworded not to state "rules" for linking of dates). This is as simple as one can get, IMHO, and should be pursued. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• If there's any possibility of reaching a conclusion by asking people a single question (or, at any rate, something much simpler than what we currently have) then that opportunity should be vigorously pursued IMO. However, I'm doubtful that "no special mention of date links" will be a satisfactory outcome. Given the nature and history of this dispute I imagine that people will be wanting and expecting a specific direction. As you say, voting "no special rule" makes the finer-grained questions irrelevant; unfortunately, as currently worded, voting in favour of a special rule also makes the finer-grained questions irrelevant, since people voting that way are instructed to make their own suggestions. Therefore, as I think I mentioned before, I don't see the logic in asking both the "Do you believe that date links should be subject only..." question and the specific wording questions. Matt 86.152.243.245 (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC).

Re-insertion of this troublesome extra question

Cole has now re-inserted the oddly named "Date links" question (everything else on the page is about date links, not just this). We are already receiving messages of barely concealed irritation (see KISS above and comments by admins at the ANI page) about the complexity and need for this RfC. Here are the problems with the reinserted "Date links" question:

1. Title. The title is a category problem: something more specific is required to avoid confusion with the rest of the RfC. It even risks confusion with autoformatting among some editors. In the lead, there is further reference to "date links"—are these the linking of "date fragments", a term used in the questions beneath, precisely to ensure that DA is not confused with month-day and year links? Or does the term refer to full dates (dmy, mdy)? In this question, does "Date links" refer to DA as well? (The fact that I am unsure makes me wonder what editors out there will make of it.)
2. General rules? It says: "Some links are subject to special rules in Wikipedia:Linking and Wikipedia:Manual of Style, but most are not." This is confusing. Wikipedia:Linking does indeed have rules about all links. At the start, there are 10 "General principles" that "apply to internal linking". Further down, there are more specific rules about lots of types of links. What exactly are the general "rules" referred to in this question? Are they the 10 general principles? I note that the link provided is to the WP:LINKING page overall, not to the "General principles" section. The guidelines on overlinking and underlinking, piped links, links to sections etc—are these general or special? My head is spinning. Why is MOSNUM not mentioned at the top as well?
3. Explanatory advice (a). Then we have recommendations on what a yes or no vote might mean. "Those who want to autoformat, but don't care whether the autoformating provides links, may wish to consider answering Yes." Um ... why? It's hard to fathom why removing all language referring to the linking of dates (whatever that's intended to mean) would equate with not caring whether DA would provide links. Run that past me again? How would one vote if one wanted to support DA, but did care about whether they DA provides links? And by "provides links", does it mean that the new DA proposed in the opening question would allow an editor to switch on dates as links, or would by default provide links? My head is spinning.
4. Explanatory advice (b). Next, it advises: "those who want a special rule making date links more common than other links, and those who want a special rule making them less common or prohibiting them, should both answer No." First confusion—you mean those who want date links (whatever they are) to occur more/less commonly than non-date links? It's a weird notion. I've never done a statistical comparison between date and non-date links. And it talks of prohibiting "them"—there's no talk of prohibiting any date-fragment link, but only of taking a conservative approach to linking them, depending on context, utility, etc. Who's talking of prohibition?
5. Beware voting "No". Those who vote No are then requested to indicate "what sort of rule on date linking you would prefer". What exactly are people expected to write here? This onerous task seems designed to funnel people into the Yes or Neutral categories, or simply to pass over the question (all bad for data), to save having to think what on earth they are expected to write. The instruction appears to assume close acquaintance with the whole text of WP:LINKING and the other date-related parts of the style guides. I think, by any standard, the results of the whole question would be laughed out of court on this basis alone.

This question is confused and confusing and its relevance is highly questionable. If allowed to remain, it will muddy the waters so much that any results from the rest of the RfC will be compromised. We absolutely must have a clear and unambiguous result from this RfC or the dispute will drag on endlessly. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been following this debate, and I'm confused about how to answer this question in a way that accurately reflects my opinion. heaven help everyone else. Karanacs (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem? Either you support saying something about date links tha doesn't apply to all links, or you don't. If you do, what do you want to say? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• If this simple proposal is not included in some form, I will propose a FoF that this poll is being censored by those who prefer instruction creep. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Gonna be bold here

SteveB’s post made it clear how we regulars have been swept up in lunacy at the insane asylum too long. I’m going to strip down each issue to two questions; one by the anti-linkers and one by the pro-linkers. I’ll try to take a stab at making it so the remaining option from the pro-linkers represents—as best I can—their views. The pro-linkers desire that they find some way to get their way has caused this RfC to degenerate into an intolerable state of confusion. SteveB’s post, “It's completely retarded to have 7 proposals for 2 ideas” is a wake-up call, where we’re supposed to lift our heads up and ask “Why do we crawl around on the insane asylum floor with whipped cream and dishwashing detergent poured all over our bodies??” Greg L (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• There. Done. That was just too easy. As you will note from one of my edit comments, the pro-linkers didn’t even try to consolidate their ideas on year-linking. The solution was obvious. As for that third month-day option: get real. The past RfCs made it clear that it didn’t have snowball’s chance in hell. Tweak. Then let’s put it into prime time. Greg L (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• So much for your "the answer to bad speech is better speech" diatribes. Apparently you think the answer is to simply remove things you disagree with because you think everyone else will disagree with it... —Locke Cole • t • c 16:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Open your eyes to the above discussion threads and concerns from outsiders. There is zero reason for so much confusion—including sections that amount to nothing more than little, conflicting, mini-polls within a poll. Sanity rules. Greg L (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• I see nothing above that would imply this question is in any way invalid. It gets at the heart of the issue considering when to link dates and years. Do we even want some special rule for these? If not, the other questions become meaningless. If so, the other questions help to determine what should and shouldn't be linked. But the point is, if the community doesn't want special rules for links of this nature, there is no need for the heartache surrounding deciphering the responses to the other questions... —Locke Cole • t • c 17:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• And check out how Ckatz is reacting to this outbreak of sanity. Greg L (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Greg, sorry, but could you please clarify what you just said? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy with Greg's condensed options. (Mainly because #2 is more or less the only thing I've been concerned about from the start of all of this.) Thanks. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

A little too bold I'd say Greg. I've added back a third proposal for year linking to give all likely options that the community would want. I certainly prefer the voting style you've changed it to - it'll give us better results. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ryan, with the entire contents of #3 folded into #2, there is no need whatsoever for #3. Hex and Ckatz seem to be at peace with it. I think your edit exceeds what you should be doing here as a clerk. Greg L (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

If its an edit marked with 'minor edit', it cant be all that important, can it, Cole? In other words, if it is important enough to undo its revert, it ain't minor. Please cut the deception. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You'll get over it. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• If this is your idea of logic, gimme a frakking break! Ohconfucius (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• This from someone trying to remove a passage they seem afraid of by force rather than discussing the merits of the question.. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Oi! Am I going to have to invoke WP:IAR, throw WP:UNINVOLVED to the wind, and start temporarily blocking people (Locke, Ohconfucius, I'm looking at you) for WP:3RR violations? Stop it. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm done... it's just frustrating to see the opponents of something which clearly scares them forcefully removing this via edit warring and not something else (oh, you know... consensus?). Greg L claims this would be a landslide, so why remove it? If the answer is so certain, what's the harm in asking the question just to make sure Greg might not have it wrong? —Locke Cole • t • c 17:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• It's six plays three, Hex. You should have acted three reverts ago. Locke was made aware when he was on his third. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even count them carefully yet, I just saw a group of people acting in a very silly fashion. It seems that Ryan has noticed, so I will leave it to him to take any necessary action. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Locke Cole 3RR warning

You have reverted people on this page eight times over the past 24 hours, including six times over the space of just 35 minutes over exactly the same text (the "Date linking" poll within a poll, which, as Greg has pointed out, is in conflict with the rest of the RfC).

May I remind you that my extensive post above has raised numerous issues about just what the text of that question meaning of the poll: several other editors have commented in the same vein. However, no one has responded to explain the text. It is bloating an already complicated poll, which has drawn irritated comments already from admins and other editors here and elsewhere. People are demanding clarity and simplicity.

In addition, you have reverted Ohconfucius's warning on your own talk page about 3RR, and proceeded to edit war. Tony (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

?!?

Why is the page locked? I was in the middle of adding quotations marks, only to see the pink screen... ---Ckatz^chat_spy 17:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, just saw the edit war over the other section (links). If anyone objects to the two changes I made, please let me know and I'll revert them. One was to put quotation marks around soe date examples, the other was to change "for example" to "e.g.". --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that's fine - I just wanted to stop the edit war. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Lock down is not need (shortly)

Ryan. Once Locke Cole is blocked for edit warring (soon), there is no need for a lock-down on the page. Ckatz, Tony, Ohconfucius, I, and the others were getting along fine. Locke should have been blocked after his fourth revert, let alone his sixth (on the exact same edit over the course of 35 minutes). Greg L (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Locke isn't the only one heading for an edit warring block - this way nobody needs to get blocked and we can get back with the task at hand. I'm only going to lock the page for a couple of hours to let things calm down. Don't worry, I promise it'll be open again soon. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• As soon as someone takes Locke to an ANI for editwarring (to the point the damned page got locked down), we can get back to civil and productive editing. Note my post above that there may be no conflict at all between the parties regarding months. I think we might be able to jettison an entire section because it might be possible to settle it here. Greg L (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• No one else has breached 3RR; Cole has reverted exactly the same text SIX times in 35 minutes; it's in a different league. We have done our utmost to move forward on the crazy conflicts and fuzzy meanings in the recently inserted question (see above), but Cole has ignored the invitation to discuss it. He has removed a warning on his talk page about 3RR. I don't know what else we can do. This still suddenly announced deadline of ?tomorrow night at midnight is becoming a real problem. Is that the correct time? It will mean a lot of activity here tomorrow. Tony (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Locke got blocked. I'm currently seeking an unblock so he can participate solely on the talk page. That said, I think he got set up good and proper here. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Set up good and proper? What does that mean? Tony (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's just say I don't think he was the only person in the wrong here - looking at the article it looks like the people reverting Locke were trying to send him over 3RR. All sides were antagonizing each other. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Damnit. He got completely unblocked. What are you going to do to keep him off the RfC page itself. That sort of disruption can’t be allowed to go on. And it’s not good enough that he be warned to play nice. What he did was bullshit. Six reverts in 35 minutes. I try to play by the rules. He does what he damn well pleases. Greg L (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• He can contribute to the talk page, but he'll also be restricted to the talk from when the protection lifts for 24 hours as well. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• WP:IAR. I don't believe bullies should be allowed to push their point of view over the objections of another simply because of 3RR. We were discussing the question above when you decided to "be bold" (more like "be a bully"). It's this same behavior that caused the issue at MOSNUM, BTW. So this should not be surprising in the LEAST. Regardless, as I've said at my talk page I'm seriously considering leaving this all behind, it's not worth it anymore. So now you can safely change the question to something you'll be sure to win, something like "Do you like cake?". And there's your consensus to do.. anything! —Locke Cole • t • c 17:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ignoring above rant about why 3RR doesn’t apply to Locke. Ryan: The RfC page is still locked and there is no need for this. At all. Are the rest of we kindergardeners here going to have to sit out and miss recess because Locke pushed and shoved in line at the drinking fountain? I don’t particularly like not being able to edit constructively because of his misbehavior. I reject the theory that any sort of “cooling” off period is required now that the monkey wrench has been extricated from the gears here. This is intolerable that Locke can have such a disruptive effect to proceedings. Restore normalcy please. Greg L (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not justifying Locke's breach of 3RR, but I think you forgot to count Ohconfucius's 3 reverts. I'm won't even argue if the statement should be there, but the edit summary justification—that Logic says that autoformatting and 'metadata' means that dates cannot be "just like any other links"—is skewing the sentiment of the question. The proposal seemed to want dates to follow the same rules for when to link to articles as for any other link; This does not have anything to do with DA. It may be affected by metadata if you take metadata to imply that dates would have to be linked to get the metadata, but I think the metadata is associated more with DA than DL. —Ost (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with the three reverts by Ohconfucius.

“ Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances. ”

Emphasis is mine. I would say that six reverts is a violation. Yes? Let’s not be deflected off the real problem here? If everyone will abide by clear, exceedingly well understood rules and stop acting like the rules don’t apply to them, things will go much more smoothly. If an editor has a chronic problem abiding by the rules, get them out of the way. Greg L (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Gosh Greg, you have chronic problems abiding by WP:CIV and WP:NPA, but you're still here. Imagine my disappointment. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I fully apologize for incorrect accusation. My main point was that of the logic in the edit summary. —Ost (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is something wrong with pushing to 3 reverts. You don't "get" 3 reverts 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 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 editwarring I am liable to block the parties doing it for 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. —— nixeagle^{email me} 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 – 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. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Initial question about linking

Now, back to the important issues..... I'm not a fan of the initial question that was being removed in the edit war (I see it's now removed and I think it should stay like that). The wrong answer to the initial question would leave the door to a lot of ambiguity. Can we leave it out? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The initial question would make the other questions unnecessary. Does the community even think we need some sort of special rule to link (or not link) dates? If the community doesn't believe we do, then we can simply not have sections on the topic at MOSNUM and rather let editors use the normal rules for when to link other items with dates (basically revert to WP:CONTEXT with no special wording just for dates or years). If there's no consensus for this, then we can look at the finer grained questions of when to link month/day and years, but if there is consensus for this, then we've avoided the other questions entirely and can set aside trying to create rules just for month/day and year links. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ryan, are you referring to the mini-poll within the poll? If so, then it needs to be jettisoned for obvious reasons. Greg L (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

New parser function flaw and limitation

I observe a flaw and limitation with the new #formatdate parser function.

• Flaw: The problem of surrounding years with commas for American style dates is still unresolved. There is no way to mark up the sentence "On March 26, 2009, I felt irritated" so that it will render correctly in both the American and international styles.

• Limitation: The function has "ISO 8601" as a possible default date format to be displayed to unregistered users. So long as the Manual of Style proscribes this format, this is OK on the English Wikipedia, but if this ever changes, it will again be easy to tell lies by writing Julian calendar dates in ISO 8601 format. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Unprotected

I've unprotected the page as Locke assures me he isn't going to edit the page (the blocking admin has stated he's not allowed to anyway fro 48 hours). Please guys - let's discuss rather than edit war. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Time to negotiate on month-day options

Since this post got lost while 6RR-fur was flying, I’ve moved it down here for notability.

Looking at the two month-day options, (unless there is some sort of hidden agenda, which I don’t think is the case), I don’t see why we can’t just combine them. And if we combine them, then I don’t think there is a need for a vote; we can just say “we arrived at a solution and it’s time for beer now.” I think it’s time for talk on month-days. Greg L (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

How would you suggest combining them? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• All #2 says is that you can, for instance, link December 25 within the Christmas article. I don’t have a problem adding that as permitted practice to #1. If that satisfies everyone, then there is really no conflict on month-day and I’m wondering if this wouldn’t be like the Vietnam-era slogan of “What if they called a war and no one came?” If the two camps can agree to consolidate month-day #1 and #2, then why put it up to a vote(?); it is uncontroversial enough that we should just take it off the table and set it aside until the RfC can resolve years. Greg L (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• I’m going to attend to some real-life matters for a few hours. Greg L (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

a side issue, but: if there are going to be only two proposals in each section, the references to "the following three proposals" and "the following four proposals" need changing. there are a couple of each. Sssoul (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

1. 2 needs altering. It needs to have similar wording as #3 for the year linking proposal. Basically, it needs to say that month and days can be linked the first time it appears in the article. Actually, this one does need a a third proposal. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Third proposal for each

I've readded a third proposal for each. The reason is that it's too conflicting to put all views into one proposal. Year proposal 2 read "Year articles (e.g. 1795, 1955, and 2007) should not be linked unless the year is particularly relevant to the topic; that is, a seminal event relevant to the subject of the article occured in that year. Examples may include the birth and death of a person and the establishment and disestablishment of an organization." and then went on to say "Year articles may also be linked upon their first occurrence in an article. Determination of whether a year link is appropriate, as with other article links, may be made on a case-by-case basis." - These are too different views - the first says that the majority of years are not linked, then it goes on to say that they can be linked if it's the first time in an article. They also represent two different views that could be possible in the community so they need to be separate. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

is there some reason to have the statement "Determination of whether a year link is appropriate, as with other article links, may be made on a case-by-case basis" in one of the proposals? its presence there wrongly implies that any of the other proposals somehow forbid or prevent making the decision on a case-by-case basis. the statement should be in all the proposals, or in none of them. Sssoul (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The wordings of proposal #1 and #2 have both been used to argue that such decisions should not be made on a case-by-case basis. Indeed, if there were agreement that it should be made on a case-by-case basis, there should be no Arbcom case, since mass editing cannot make such decisions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

... are you talking about the "mass removal" of date-autoformatting markup? that's a different issue than date linking. no matter which date-linking proposal the community consensus supports, if autoformatting is rejected, the community might want mass removal of the autoformatting markup. meanwhile, all of the date-linking proposals permit making case-by-case decisions on which dates to link - it's just that they each propose different criteria for making the decision. that "case-by-case" sentence should either be in all the proposals or in none of them. "in none of them" probably makes more sense. Sssoul (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Absolutely not. I am discussing the events at work in WP:ARBDATE, which involve (almost entirely) delinking, not autoformatting. Furthermore, while the inclusion of "case-by-case" in all of these might indeed resolve the case, by the same token I doubt it will be acceptable. On the other hand, its exclusion from #3 would destroy, as far as I am concerned, the whole point of that option, and render this poll worthless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)