Wikipedia:Date linking request for comment

It is important that to get as many views as possible on the format of a request for comment regarding date linking articles, we get individual views about the process. In your own section, please state your thoughts on how the request for comment should work. A few examples of considerations to make are as follows;

• What issues should the RfC deal with? This includes both scope and the detail the process will go into.
• What format should the RfC take? Should it ask for outside opinions, or should we develop a set of questions/proposals and put it to a vote?
• How should each individual point be put across? i.e. should we list pros and cons of each proposal or should we leave it up to the community to come to their own conclusions?

Please only edit your own section and discussion can take place on the talk page.

View by User:Arthur Rubin

(copied with some modifications, from my comments on the Arbitration talk page)

Autoformatting...

1. When should dates be autoformatted?
   1. Under the current system
   2. Under the proposed system
      • What should the proposed system be?
      • How should autoformatted dates be tagged as linked/not linked (opposite to the default)
      • When should autoformatted dates be linked?
2. If dates are/are-not autoformatted according to the above rules, what tools (bots, semi-automated edits which are essentially bots, semi-automated edits which are not essentially bots, etc.) are allowed to correct the issue?

Date fragment links

1. When should date fragments be linked (DOW (Day of Week), DOY (day of year, such as January 1, month, year, decade, century, millennium, etc.) I tend to agree with DaBomb and Kendrick about the general classification. In order of increasing likelyhood of linking, and my opinion as to how often they should be linked:
   1. DOW, month (hardly ever linked)
   2. DOY (primarily in timeline articles, with rare exceptions)
   3. decade, century, millennium (mostly (decade) in (decade in X), etc., but articles about an era which begins or ends in that time interval might be appropriate)
   4. year (there is some debate over specific circumstances in which individual years should be linked)
   • Perhaps we need a separate positive/negative consensus; in some cases, the MOS should neither make a recommendation for or against linking, but leaving it up to editorial judgement on the specific article or group of articles.
2. To what extent can a project consensus override the general consensus for or against linking?
3. If date fragments are / are not linked properly according to the above rules, what tools (bots, etc.) are allowed to correct the issue?
   • Does this depend on the strength of consensus as to whether the date fragment should be linked?

In regard the tools, the question is whether a cursory glance (which is all that even a semi-automated edit can provide) or an algorithm (bot) can determine whether the date or date fragment should/should not be linked; and if not, should an error-prone tool (such as User:Tony1 for delinking or User:Tennis Expert for linking) be allowed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)