MOS talk:UNLINKDATES

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Manual of Style

	This redirect falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style
	This redirect falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
	For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

ARBCOM – Temporary injunction

Rather than rv-warring over the target of this page, why not simply add a note on the MOS page pointing to the arbcom injunction? –xeno (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's currently protected, and so far attempts to add dispute notices to the page have met with resistance (and thus, inaction) from the usual suspects. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Seems to be just semi since the 19th.~~ –xeno (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So ... why not take it to WT:MOS? That is the proper place. Tony (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you aren't a fan of WP:COMMONSENSE. Not everything needs to be discussed in committee before implementation as you seem to think. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Clearly this is only a temporary adjustment of the redirect, until the injunction is lifted; and as the ArbCom injunction supersedes all prior guidance on the matter, it is not appropriate to mislead editors into thinking that it is appropriate to be delinking dates at this time. You're being unbelievably petty, Tony; please gain some perspective on this matter and stop. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section which would need to be modified is currently in a fully protected subpage. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, sorry, didn't notice that until after. Hows this, then? –xeno (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than suggesting it be put in a DIV box so it can be easily noticed, the wording is fine by me. =) See below for my suggestion:

Temporary injunction regarding linking/delinking: Note that until the Date delinking arbitration case is decided or until otherwise directed by the Arbitration Committee, all editors are instructed not to engage in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates in existing articles, including but not limited to through the use of bots, scripts, tools, or otherwise. (Injunction in place since 11:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC))

—Locke Cole • t • c 13:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done –xeno (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]