![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
As this practice (and the actual manual of style guideline) are currently in dispute, you should probably back off of unlinking dates until the dispute is resolved. Prior ArbCom cases have looked unfavorably on editors who attempt to force through disputed changes on a large scale as you (and other editors) are doing. Specifically, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli, which I quote:
Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.
Continuing this behavior could be considered disruption. Please stop and instead participate in the ongoing discussions at WT:MOSNUM and elsewhere. Tennis expert ( talk) 07:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Your edits have been reported here. Tennis expert ( talk) 00:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Administrator note As a notice, any further reverts regarding date-delinking and linking will result in a block. This is an issue that, although it has its own guideline and it is within lines to edit per the current MOS, the date-delinking/linking process is still disputed, and the edit warring from all parties has gone on long enough. AN, ANI, EW/3RR, you name it, it's been there. This applies to all parties and not just you, for reference. Thanks,
seicer |
talk |
contribs
00:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious how do you work out the arbitrary changes you made to this page with
this edit . For example why remove the link from "Switzerland" but not the "English Channel"? Now that we no longer have automatic date changes why remove "the" from in front of a date instead if you do not like "the 22 March 1816;" why not change it to "the 22nd of March" why change it to "the 22 March"? --
PBS (
talk)
20:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Also why did you change Blucher to Blücher in both the "Treaty of Paris" and in this edit [2] to "Hundred days" as Blucher is spelt Blucher, Bluecher and Blücher in reliable sources? -- PBS ( talk) 20:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
It does not matter what the Wikipedia page uses, what matters is what the reliable sources for the particular article uses. Do you know what the sources are using for those two articles? I suggest that if you wish to dates on an article which you have little familiarity then unless you are willing to take time to read the article and the sources used to create the article that you do not arbitrarily change the spelling of words. For example would you change every (Lech) "Walesa" to "Wałęsa" just because the Wikipedia page is spelt that way even though the majority of English language sources spell his name "Walesa"? -- PBS ( talk) 20:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
In the article Battle of Waterloo you changed Hugh Halkett's to Hugh Halkett's do you really think that the "'s" s easier to read in black when the rest of the word (Halkett) is in blue? -- PBS ( talk) 21:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Then I suggest that you do not change one style to another when using AWB. -- PBS ( talk) 21:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
If you can spare the time your input would be welcome here.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 00:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
If you can spare the time your input would be welcome here.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 00:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The guideline is pretty clear that the only time that ties to a particular country dictate the date format is if it is an English-speaking country. If not, then however the article starts is the format it then keeps. See Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Retaining_the_existing_format.-- 2008Olympian chitchat 16:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here as to why I put the dates as mdy. Personally, I think if the majority of our readers are AMerican, then the dates should be that way as well. But regardless of my preferences, the MOSNUM is pretty clear.-- 2008Olympian chitchat 05:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
"First major contributor" is a minor plank, intended to guide what we do about stubs and near-stubs. But there is a much simpler alternative which does away with it entirely for MOSNUM. (I'm not sure how it got the prominence it has on MOS; but that can be modified too.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all the excellent proofreading on a variety of articles lately. Happy holidays! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 06:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
As this practice (and the actual manual of style guideline) are currently in dispute, you should probably back off of unlinking dates until the dispute is resolved. Prior ArbCom cases have looked unfavorably on editors who attempt to force through disputed changes on a large scale as you (and other editors) are doing. Specifically, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli, which I quote:
Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.
Continuing this behavior could be considered disruption. Please stop and instead participate in the ongoing discussions at WT:MOSNUM and elsewhere. Tennis expert ( talk) 07:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Your edits have been reported here. Tennis expert ( talk) 00:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Administrator note As a notice, any further reverts regarding date-delinking and linking will result in a block. This is an issue that, although it has its own guideline and it is within lines to edit per the current MOS, the date-delinking/linking process is still disputed, and the edit warring from all parties has gone on long enough. AN, ANI, EW/3RR, you name it, it's been there. This applies to all parties and not just you, for reference. Thanks,
seicer |
talk |
contribs
00:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious how do you work out the arbitrary changes you made to this page with
this edit . For example why remove the link from "Switzerland" but not the "English Channel"? Now that we no longer have automatic date changes why remove "the" from in front of a date instead if you do not like "the 22 March 1816;" why not change it to "the 22nd of March" why change it to "the 22 March"? --
PBS (
talk)
20:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Also why did you change Blucher to Blücher in both the "Treaty of Paris" and in this edit [2] to "Hundred days" as Blucher is spelt Blucher, Bluecher and Blücher in reliable sources? -- PBS ( talk) 20:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
It does not matter what the Wikipedia page uses, what matters is what the reliable sources for the particular article uses. Do you know what the sources are using for those two articles? I suggest that if you wish to dates on an article which you have little familiarity then unless you are willing to take time to read the article and the sources used to create the article that you do not arbitrarily change the spelling of words. For example would you change every (Lech) "Walesa" to "Wałęsa" just because the Wikipedia page is spelt that way even though the majority of English language sources spell his name "Walesa"? -- PBS ( talk) 20:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
In the article Battle of Waterloo you changed Hugh Halkett's to Hugh Halkett's do you really think that the "'s" s easier to read in black when the rest of the word (Halkett) is in blue? -- PBS ( talk) 21:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Then I suggest that you do not change one style to another when using AWB. -- PBS ( talk) 21:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
If you can spare the time your input would be welcome here.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 00:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
If you can spare the time your input would be welcome here.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 00:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The guideline is pretty clear that the only time that ties to a particular country dictate the date format is if it is an English-speaking country. If not, then however the article starts is the format it then keeps. See Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Retaining_the_existing_format.-- 2008Olympian chitchat 16:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here as to why I put the dates as mdy. Personally, I think if the majority of our readers are AMerican, then the dates should be that way as well. But regardless of my preferences, the MOSNUM is pretty clear.-- 2008Olympian chitchat 05:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
"First major contributor" is a minor plank, intended to guide what we do about stubs and near-stubs. But there is a much simpler alternative which does away with it entirely for MOSNUM. (I'm not sure how it got the prominence it has on MOS; but that can be modified too.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all the excellent proofreading on a variety of articles lately. Happy holidays! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 06:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)