Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Datestempprotectedsection

disputed tag

{{editprotected}}

This should have a tag, probably {{disputedtag}} to show that it is protected because of a dispute, and therefore should have a grain of salt before being taken as guidance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please could you obtain agreement for adding this tag on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No, probably not; this section has been protected because two members of the related arbcom case were revert-warring against such a tag - but the existence of a revert war, and of an arbcom case, should prove the existence of such a dispute. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this section should have a clearly visible indicator that it has been split to a separate page that is protected, and is not considered stable. It should also indicate whether questions regarding this section are supposed to go to be added to the main MOSNUM talk page, or this talk page. It is all very confusing. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Just want to note that a disputed tag would not be correct here, since everything currently in the relevant section was approved by the community through the RfC. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

update per WP:DATEPOLL

I don't agree with Ryan's analysis. I would say that the number of voters who supported year option 1 and indicated that they agreed with more than the subtitle, is less than 50% of the total number of voters. I'm not going to edit war, but I do not agree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Update following closing of arbitration case

{{editprotected}} Please change the template to read as follows:

Restriction regarding linking/delinking: According to the Date delinking arbitration case, for six months, no mass date delinking should be performed unless the Arbitration Committee is notified of a community-approved process for the mass delinking. (Remedy in place since 21:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC))

Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done. I tweaked your box a bit. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm also considering adding a footnote to a list of examples of date delinking that were approved by several arbitrators as not being classified as mass delinking. See this. What do others think? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to MSGJ. I think a link via footnote is well worth considering, since it would provide direct insight for admins and other editors on the arbitrators' opinions on how "mass date delinking" is defined. I think everyone agrees it's important for all to know the boundaries, as best as they can be weighed up. Can it be done neatly within the box, dabomb? Can you show us an example? What does MSGJ think? Tony (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Like this? Gary King (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly right, Gary. Thanks! Dabomb87 (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That was quite a simple fix; I was overthinking things. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Footnote text could be: "The opinions of five of the arbitrators in the case are set out here." Tony (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I like it. What do others think? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Editprotected request

{{editprotected}} Created new shortcut for WP:MOSDB. Wish to add: MOS:DOB, I found it to be a more helpful shortcut. -- œ^™ 22:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)