Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll/Archive 1

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)

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. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 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. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 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". -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 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". -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 17:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Earle Martin, 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. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 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)

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 Earle Martin: 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^{[clarification needed]} 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^{[clarification needed]}, 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)

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)

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)