![]() | This 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. |
Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | → | Archive 50 |
Note: This extended discussion on the linking of dates, during March and April 2006, is 171 kilobytes long. It therefore occupies archives 42 through 46.
previous page: /archive42 < | (long discussion) archive43 |
> next page: /archive44 |
The second-level header section "linking of dates" continues from archive42.
I'm about to simplify Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Avoid overlinking dates, in order to make it less contentious. Also I'm proposing to move it under the section that explains in which cases the "date preferences" don't work ( Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Usage of links for date preferences) while IMHO that's a more logical sequence: first make people acquainted with the issues, and let the recommendation based on these issues follow.
Here's the present text:
Here's the alternative I propose (reworked 10:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)):
The related Edit Summary would read: "(1) not an "important point": rationale is based on Date Preferences which is only an optional accessory; (2) "strong reason" contentious: relevance is enough; (3) Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context does not give any more specific reasons re. low-value chronological links" -- Francis Schonken 00:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The proposed edit summary is too long to fit. Tony 00:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Edit of "Fibonacci" article (edit summary: "formatting, fixed deadlinks, unlinked lone years per Wikipedia: Manual of Style")
The only useful part of that edit was IMHO the checking of external links, and adding some new ones instead of one old one that had gone dead.
Not useful formatting (really, I object to Wikipedia's resources being used for such edits):
Especially the first two of these are deteriorating the article IMHO. If the Liber Abaci is not mentioned in the 1202 article, then that's no fault of the Fibonacci article, but a failure of the 1202 article. One doesn't solve faults by denying their existence.
The first alteration is also obnoxious while removing place of birth and death contrary to the MoS (biographies). It *might* seem obvious that he was born and died in Pisa, while named "of Pisa"/"Pisano"/"da Pisa". It becomes less so when acquainted with the fact (as mentioned in the article) that in Pisa he was rather known under the nickname "bigollo" ("traveller", actually a better translation would be: "vagrant" or "tramp").
Further pedantic and useless changes from the same edit:
== Headline text ==
I don't know whether this was "bot", "semi-bot", or simply a wikipedian thinking (s)he should outwit all others, but I reverted some of it (not the pedantry) -- Francis Schonken 09:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
While repetitive linking is normally a bad thing in a table the only way people can view the whole table by their date preference is if all the dates are wiki-linked. Maybe this should be mentioned here. Discordance 21:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
For full dates in tables (and in lists starting with the date), it often makes sense to either not link dates, or to disable preferences by using piping (e.g. [[14 November|14 Nov]] [[1968]]), to make the length more consistent for easier comparison and to keep the column from becoming unnecessarily wide by using consistent three letter abbreviations of the month, no matter what order is used (YYYY mon DD, DD mon YYYY, mon DD, YYY). (Personally, I also like fixed width fonts and padding of DD less than 10 with zero or nonbreaking spaces.) Gene Nygaard 15:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey - I just wanted to make a note of something in case you didn't use it already. I often use the as of 2006 syntax in articles where it's useful. These links redirect to 2006, but the use is that if you backtrack to the "as of 2006" redirect page and click "What links here", then there's a big list of articles containing statistics that were valid in 2006 but will need to be updated later. In 2016 some editor team may choose to rip through and update all those statistics as of 2016. And then in 2026, and 2036, etc.
You probably already knew about this, but I wanted to make sure your laudable effort to get rid of the "useless sea of blue" didn't extend to the "as of" date links. Thanks - Tempshill 02:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Another editor was blocked today for delinking dates. There seem to be very strong feelings about this issue, and it's a great pity to see editors and admins being blocked for adhering to the MoS, so I'd like to propose that this compromise text be inserted:
Any thoughts? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
There is an important difference here. British vs. American English are both styles that are accepted by the Wikipedia community. BC and BCE are both considered valid, according to the MoS. But overlinking years is not a valid "style", according to the MoS.
Neither
is
linking
every
word. Both of those are discouraged, whereas using BC or BCE is not discouraged.
Consider the standard AutoWikiBrowser changes. In those cases, AWB-users going through the encyclopedia with the sole purpose of enforcing MoS guidelines (e.g. not capitalizing all words in headers). This is encouraged. How is what I'm doing any different? – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 20:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Then it seems to me that this compromise would have the following result:
This doesn't seem like a good idea to me. If overlinking years is acceptable, then the MoS should say so. If it's not acceptable, then I should be able to make changes like this without fear of retribution. (That edit is in accordance with the MoS, and is, in my opinion, badly needed.) – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 20:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad that everyone who has previously made their support for the manual of style section in question has come along and said "no" to this compromise, now all we need is for everyone who disagrees with the manual of style suggestion to come along and also say "no" to the compromise. Then we're all back at square one! Compromise and consensus requires some give and take people. Talrias ( t | e | c) 20:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, the MoS currently says this about linking years:
From this guideline, it clearly advises users not to link dates and thus, I think it is perfectly acceptable to remove them manually, as Quadell has done. As SlimVirgin has said, there should be something said about bots not being allowed to traverse the encyclopedia unlinking years. I don't quite understand the opposition of unlinking dates manually... Gflores Talk 21:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
...Which also confirms not to take too many importance in the vote results thus far, but rather "try and bring the guidelines towards what is felt ought to be said.", avoiding a blocking behaviour that is not justified by what the actual text says. -- Francis Schonken 00:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Thank you for taking this matter forward. I am very pleased that you have taken the time to do this (even though you voted "oppose" and I voted "support"!). Whilst not feeling very stongly on the date issue as such, I have been horrified by the retaliation being taken against Bobblewik. It seems to me these people have utterly failed to make any move at all to try and bring the guidelines towards what they feel ought to be said.
Imagine the following hypothetical vote: "Should the MoS recommend, as it currently does, that years be linked only when they are parts of full dates (or else when there is a particular reason for there to be an exception)? Or should the MoS be changed to allow years should be routinely linked?" If such a vote were held and were widely advertised, I think a consensus (80%+), or else a strong majority (70%+), would support the former approach, with Talrias and Ambi strongly objecting. I don't advocate such a vote at this time because it would take up time and harden feelings, and I don't think it would tell us anything we don't already know: that a consensus exists, but that there are strong feelings of opposition from a few well-respected admins. If this consensus exists, and I think it does, then I would like to be able to make these changes without fear of repercussions. We could hold a vote just to prove that this is the case, but it would be unfortunate; the very fact that such a guideline has existed for a year says a great deal in its favor. – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 00:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, SlimVirgin, delinking does not clearly have a consensus, at least not as practiced by Bobblewik and some others: such users have been blocked (and then, sometimes followed by a wheel-war). So this consensus *existing* is nothing more than a myth. I have put this MoS page on my watchlist because of the disruption following from delinking and relinking spreading to so many pages. I suppose I'm not the only one, so I think your suggestion that this page was "much-watched" at the moment that it got more specific about overlinking might be unjustified conjecture.
So, I'm open to any suggestion by Talrias – but as far as I'm concerned there is no prerequisite to state a "consensus against overlinking". Stating that there is no consensus that this should be interpreted any stricter than the general recommendations against overlinking would be as viable to me. -- Francis Schonken 01:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the issue that Talrias is wanting discussed, is what determines when a date Does get linked? How is importance determined (allowing for subjectivity)?
I would support the issue going to some sort of vote.
I would insist that we wait until the
bug 4582 is fixed.
Until then we can discuss it peacefully :) --
Quiddity
01:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
discussion continued from /archive42 < | (long discussion) archive43 |
> discussion continues in /archive44 |
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | → | Archive 50 |
Note: This extended discussion on the linking of dates, during March and April 2006, is 171 kilobytes long. It therefore occupies archives 42 through 46.
previous page: /archive42 < | (long discussion) archive43 |
> next page: /archive44 |
The second-level header section "linking of dates" continues from archive42.
I'm about to simplify Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Avoid overlinking dates, in order to make it less contentious. Also I'm proposing to move it under the section that explains in which cases the "date preferences" don't work ( Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Usage of links for date preferences) while IMHO that's a more logical sequence: first make people acquainted with the issues, and let the recommendation based on these issues follow.
Here's the present text:
Here's the alternative I propose (reworked 10:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)):
The related Edit Summary would read: "(1) not an "important point": rationale is based on Date Preferences which is only an optional accessory; (2) "strong reason" contentious: relevance is enough; (3) Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context does not give any more specific reasons re. low-value chronological links" -- Francis Schonken 00:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The proposed edit summary is too long to fit. Tony 00:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Edit of "Fibonacci" article (edit summary: "formatting, fixed deadlinks, unlinked lone years per Wikipedia: Manual of Style")
The only useful part of that edit was IMHO the checking of external links, and adding some new ones instead of one old one that had gone dead.
Not useful formatting (really, I object to Wikipedia's resources being used for such edits):
Especially the first two of these are deteriorating the article IMHO. If the Liber Abaci is not mentioned in the 1202 article, then that's no fault of the Fibonacci article, but a failure of the 1202 article. One doesn't solve faults by denying their existence.
The first alteration is also obnoxious while removing place of birth and death contrary to the MoS (biographies). It *might* seem obvious that he was born and died in Pisa, while named "of Pisa"/"Pisano"/"da Pisa". It becomes less so when acquainted with the fact (as mentioned in the article) that in Pisa he was rather known under the nickname "bigollo" ("traveller", actually a better translation would be: "vagrant" or "tramp").
Further pedantic and useless changes from the same edit:
== Headline text ==
I don't know whether this was "bot", "semi-bot", or simply a wikipedian thinking (s)he should outwit all others, but I reverted some of it (not the pedantry) -- Francis Schonken 09:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
While repetitive linking is normally a bad thing in a table the only way people can view the whole table by their date preference is if all the dates are wiki-linked. Maybe this should be mentioned here. Discordance 21:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
For full dates in tables (and in lists starting with the date), it often makes sense to either not link dates, or to disable preferences by using piping (e.g. [[14 November|14 Nov]] [[1968]]), to make the length more consistent for easier comparison and to keep the column from becoming unnecessarily wide by using consistent three letter abbreviations of the month, no matter what order is used (YYYY mon DD, DD mon YYYY, mon DD, YYY). (Personally, I also like fixed width fonts and padding of DD less than 10 with zero or nonbreaking spaces.) Gene Nygaard 15:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey - I just wanted to make a note of something in case you didn't use it already. I often use the as of 2006 syntax in articles where it's useful. These links redirect to 2006, but the use is that if you backtrack to the "as of 2006" redirect page and click "What links here", then there's a big list of articles containing statistics that were valid in 2006 but will need to be updated later. In 2016 some editor team may choose to rip through and update all those statistics as of 2016. And then in 2026, and 2036, etc.
You probably already knew about this, but I wanted to make sure your laudable effort to get rid of the "useless sea of blue" didn't extend to the "as of" date links. Thanks - Tempshill 02:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Another editor was blocked today for delinking dates. There seem to be very strong feelings about this issue, and it's a great pity to see editors and admins being blocked for adhering to the MoS, so I'd like to propose that this compromise text be inserted:
Any thoughts? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
There is an important difference here. British vs. American English are both styles that are accepted by the Wikipedia community. BC and BCE are both considered valid, according to the MoS. But overlinking years is not a valid "style", according to the MoS.
Neither
is
linking
every
word. Both of those are discouraged, whereas using BC or BCE is not discouraged.
Consider the standard AutoWikiBrowser changes. In those cases, AWB-users going through the encyclopedia with the sole purpose of enforcing MoS guidelines (e.g. not capitalizing all words in headers). This is encouraged. How is what I'm doing any different? – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 20:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Then it seems to me that this compromise would have the following result:
This doesn't seem like a good idea to me. If overlinking years is acceptable, then the MoS should say so. If it's not acceptable, then I should be able to make changes like this without fear of retribution. (That edit is in accordance with the MoS, and is, in my opinion, badly needed.) – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 20:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad that everyone who has previously made their support for the manual of style section in question has come along and said "no" to this compromise, now all we need is for everyone who disagrees with the manual of style suggestion to come along and also say "no" to the compromise. Then we're all back at square one! Compromise and consensus requires some give and take people. Talrias ( t | e | c) 20:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, the MoS currently says this about linking years:
From this guideline, it clearly advises users not to link dates and thus, I think it is perfectly acceptable to remove them manually, as Quadell has done. As SlimVirgin has said, there should be something said about bots not being allowed to traverse the encyclopedia unlinking years. I don't quite understand the opposition of unlinking dates manually... Gflores Talk 21:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
...Which also confirms not to take too many importance in the vote results thus far, but rather "try and bring the guidelines towards what is felt ought to be said.", avoiding a blocking behaviour that is not justified by what the actual text says. -- Francis Schonken 00:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Thank you for taking this matter forward. I am very pleased that you have taken the time to do this (even though you voted "oppose" and I voted "support"!). Whilst not feeling very stongly on the date issue as such, I have been horrified by the retaliation being taken against Bobblewik. It seems to me these people have utterly failed to make any move at all to try and bring the guidelines towards what they feel ought to be said.
Imagine the following hypothetical vote: "Should the MoS recommend, as it currently does, that years be linked only when they are parts of full dates (or else when there is a particular reason for there to be an exception)? Or should the MoS be changed to allow years should be routinely linked?" If such a vote were held and were widely advertised, I think a consensus (80%+), or else a strong majority (70%+), would support the former approach, with Talrias and Ambi strongly objecting. I don't advocate such a vote at this time because it would take up time and harden feelings, and I don't think it would tell us anything we don't already know: that a consensus exists, but that there are strong feelings of opposition from a few well-respected admins. If this consensus exists, and I think it does, then I would like to be able to make these changes without fear of repercussions. We could hold a vote just to prove that this is the case, but it would be unfortunate; the very fact that such a guideline has existed for a year says a great deal in its favor. – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 00:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, SlimVirgin, delinking does not clearly have a consensus, at least not as practiced by Bobblewik and some others: such users have been blocked (and then, sometimes followed by a wheel-war). So this consensus *existing* is nothing more than a myth. I have put this MoS page on my watchlist because of the disruption following from delinking and relinking spreading to so many pages. I suppose I'm not the only one, so I think your suggestion that this page was "much-watched" at the moment that it got more specific about overlinking might be unjustified conjecture.
So, I'm open to any suggestion by Talrias – but as far as I'm concerned there is no prerequisite to state a "consensus against overlinking". Stating that there is no consensus that this should be interpreted any stricter than the general recommendations against overlinking would be as viable to me. -- Francis Schonken 01:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the issue that Talrias is wanting discussed, is what determines when a date Does get linked? How is importance determined (allowing for subjectivity)?
I would support the issue going to some sort of vote.
I would insist that we wait until the
bug 4582 is fixed.
Until then we can discuss it peacefully :) --
Quiddity
01:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
discussion continued from /archive42 < | (long discussion) archive43 |
> discussion continues in /archive44 |