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)

This is just an issue list, not dealing with the degree of detail yet. More detail will be needed, and format and presentation is not yet covered.

Autoformatting...

When should dates be autoformatted?
1. Under the current system <seems to be a general consensus that they shouldn't be autoformatted under the current system, but the definition of autoformatting in RFC1#1 and RFC2#1 is unclear.
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?
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

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.
To what extent can a project consensus override the general consensus for or against linking?
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)[reply]

View by User:RexxS

Here, I am not commenting on the issue of autoformatting, but solely on the issue of date linking; that is, linking to years (such as 1809), day+months (such as 12 February) or full dates (such as 12 February 1809). I refer to these as date-links.

Towards the end of the Nov-Dec 2008 RfC's I commented on the question of relevancy. I still believe that the necessary first step is to determine the consensus on the following question:

Is there sufficient value gained by allowing date-links to be an exception to the rule of relevancy?

I believe strongly in the WP:MOSLINK statement: "Internal links add to the cohesion and utility of Wikipedia by allowing readers to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles." and hope that that could be assumed common ground before starting any RfC. That is what I've thought of as the principle of 'relevancy' and I suggest that the underlying dispute here rests on whether or not particular categories of date-links provide some value other than direct relevancy to the article. Please remember that our articles such as 18 May are generally no more than "A list of events that happened on 18 May", so I contended, as an example, that the date 18 May is relevant to the article First Hague Conference, but the article 18 May, unfortunately, is not.

A similar argument leads to the question on year links. I do agree, however, that some year articles could qualify as meeting the relevancy principle (1942 in a WWII article is often quoted as an example). Nevertheless the vast majority of year articles could not meet that criterion when considering making a link to them.

So, we need to determine if there is consensus for making date-links when the date article is not directly relevant to the article where the editor is making the link. Some of the reasons may be:

Eventually our date articles will be rich enough in content to provide relevant background;
It costs little to make a hyperlink and it's easier for a user to click it than use the search box;
One of the joys of a paper encyclopedia is that while looking for a particular topic, you often find something else unrelated, but interesting, because it is adjacent alphabetically. The date articles here also provide another kind of adjacency - other topics that share the same year or "birthday".

There are probably others and I would expect an RfC to explore that. In the process, I believe we would see what the consensus is for any exceptions to the relevancy principle and what those exceptions are.

Of course, I also recognise there is a position stating "it is impossible to give guidance on date-links generally, and each one has to be an individual editor's decision", but personally reject that, since I believe that the vast majority of editors prefer some guidance, whilst allowing exceptions when it's in the best interest of the encyclopedia. An RfC should probably test whether there exists a consensus for that position or for mine. --RexxS (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View by User:Bzuk

In respect to datelinking, if there is questionable or limited value in linking dates indiscriminately to a list of events extant for a day, month or year, then it provides no relevance to the user. I would support only linking a date to a specific grouping, such as "year in film" listing but can see no valid reason to link dates for the sake of linking them to generalized lists. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

View by Masem

An interesting point has come up throughout the discussion before and during the ArbCom case that might be helpful to focus on, and this is, what is the ultimate goal of the "almanac" pages? Should they remain as, as some see it "random trivia lists", should they be improved to be more prose-y and comprehensive, should we be linking to almanac pages relative to the field of the linked topic, with linkages to larger concepts on those dates/years? Which leads to the question, should there be desire to improve the use of these articles, is it worth it to retain links in the interim to avoid having to create them? Also, are there any potential uses in the metadata of linking dates that can be used by other services through the WP API to reconstruct the data somehow? --MASEM (t) 22:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View by User:Ohconfucius

First off, I am slightly confused that there is this new RfC: how does this relate to the earlier one started in RP's userspace (User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite/Date linking RfC)?

I have expressed my desire to see a neutrally and professionally constructed RfC which eliminates the partisan bickering and bias which has crept into the 3 RfCs already conducted on the subject. I would also like to see questions which do not leave too many significant open ends which open the door to further dispute and arguments. To that end, I have found names of some wikipedians who are likely to have those skills. While we should agree on what questions to ask, we should leave it as much as possible to the professionals to deal with 'how' they are asked.

Date-autoformatting, as we know it, is deprecated – nearly dead (although no-one has pulled the plug on the respirator yet). Let's not get ahead of ourselves, and let's start with the fundamental question: Is any sort of autoformatting desirable? Only if that question is answered can we decide

what form that 'son of date-autoformatting' should take. Development must not be haphazard, and proper project management should be put in place, with consensus sought at appropriate junctures of the project (pre-determined prior to commencement). The first such pre-initiation consensus must be one on the scope of software, user (as in reader) requirements and specifications.

View by User:Kotniski

Rarely am I moved to swear on Wikipedia, but FFS, how many RfCs on the same topic do we need? We've had two; they produced very clear answers, and no new one is going to produce anything clearer. It is quite bizarre that instead of letting people get on with putting the community's decisions into practice, people are trying to keep the dead horse on life-support. The hope, no doubt, is that this time most people will be so bored that they won't be bothered to participate, so those who have climbed the WP:REICHSTAG on this issue will be able to claim a lack of consensus and continue preventing people from implementing the decisions we've made. ArbCom members ought to be perceptive enough to see through this sort of thing. --Kotniski (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse Kotniski's comment. Tony (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]