![]() | 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 85 | ← | Archive 88 | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | → | Archive 95 |
Just recently noticed that MediaWiki is using the IEC prefixes: Search
Inconsistently, though... Image
Isn't that cute... -- mattb 23:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Currently, the section reads:
This is misleading. Someone not familiar with the situation can read it as meaning that dates are autoformatted automatically, with no action by an editor required. Since this page gives guidance towards editors, it should be rephrased to do just that. My suggestion is:
The autoformat is not something which is enabled by the editor. Each user sets their own autoformat preferences. However, proper editing facilitates the autoformat, while omitting the square brackets means that autoformat will not work. Neier 12:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I share Tony's view. I too would discourage the use of the dysfunctional autoformatting system. In the continuum of forbidding to mandating, the mos is very close to mandating. I support any move back along the continuum away from mandating it. Lightmouse 08:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
(Outdent) The response included:
Lack of substantive response means that none of us feels like writing the code, generally. If any of the 70 Wikipedians who were willing to spend a few seconds to sign a petition are willing and able to spend a few days or more writing the appropriate code and revising it in response to criticism, it might (but might not, admittedly) get approved. I'm not willing to commit (no pun intended) to review the patch, but another developer might be.
Gee, thanks. On the WP page that led to this push, there are now 85 signatories. I'm sure more would sign on now. But what's the use?
Full discourse is at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4582
BTW, other problems with the system are that, for example, you can't slash ("The air-raids on the night of 30/31 May"), you can't use date ranges ("20–27 August"); there are others I can't recall right now. Tony (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
And the archives here. Tony (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this item should be added to "exceptions" in the section "Spelling out numbers":
This convention is actually used in the section about units of measurement, without being mentioned explicitly. Han-Kwang ( t) 22:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Well Tony1, if you don't like the wording, how about commenting on the wording here? Han-Kwang ( t) 11:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
In prose, the unit of measurement should always be spelled out, so this is only relevant to infoboxes, tables, parentheses, and the like, where the numbers are never spelled out anyway. — Centrx→ talk • 04:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know the conventions of how amendments to MoS pages are supposed to be done. I made a suggestion here, that I think makes reasonable sense, although the exact wording and its dealing with boundary cases might need to be polished. So my fellow Wikipedians, if you generally agree with my proposition, please add it (rephrased or not) to the MoS page. If not, say so, and leave the page as it is. But the ambiguous way the proposal has been dealt with so far looks like a waste of time for me, so I'm removing this page from my watchlist. Han-Kwang ( t) 18:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
This strikes me as WP:BEANS. The number of editors going around doing "eight km" are near zero; there is no consensus I'm aware of that "8 kilometers" is offensive to anyone who is not so obsessed with grammatical nitpicks that even the MOS regulars think they are insane. I.e., where is the actual problem? That said, I don't mind a one-liner addition to MOSNUM that "eight km" is off-limits; I just don't think it's really necessary. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This is merger of several related discussions and proposals. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking for some clarification about when dates should be linked. In the Autoformatting and linking section of the MOS, the last bullet reads:
"Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic. Piped links to pages that are more focused on a topic are possible (
[[1997 in South African sport|1997]]
), but cannot be used in full dates, where they break the date-linking function."
Does the sentence in boldface (my emphasis) mean:
1. That dates (using any combiations of days, months, and year) should only be linked if the linked date will add to the reader's understanding.
2. That only full dates (i.e.
November 1,
2007) should be linked, but not dates like
November
2007.
Another Wiki user has been trying to tell me that the latter is the case, while I have been trying to indicate that the first meaning is correct. (The discussion can be viewed here: User_talk:NatureBoyMD.) Which is correct? - NatureBoyMD 21:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The albums project contains the following:
[[1991 in music|1991]]
, instead add (see
1991 in music) where you feel it is appropriate.I propose that we make that generic and include it. Lightmouse 11:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
[[1991 in music|1991]]
can make perfect sense in a table, for example.
Septentrionalis
PMAnderson 06:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
[[1997 in South African sport|1997]]
), but cannot be used in full dates, where they break the date-linking function.[[1991 in music|1991]]
) in the main prose of an article. Use "(see [[1991 in music]])", if it is appropriate to link a year to such an article at all. In places where compact presetation is important (some tables, infoboxes and lists), piped links may be useful. Piped links must never be used in full dates (e.g. [[January 1]], [[1991 in music|1991]]
) because they break the date-formatting function. Piped topical year links should only be made when the event in question is genuinely notable in the context of the year article to which would link.New version to address issue raised by Woody:
[[1991 in music|1991]]
) in the main prose of an article. Use an explicit cross-reference, e.g. ''(see [[1991 in music]])''
, if it is appropriate to link a year to such an article at all. In places where compact presentation is important (some tables, infoboxes and lists), piped links may be useful. Another exception is the main prose of articles in which such links are used heavily, as if often the case with sportsperson biographies that link to numerous separate season articles, in which the ''(see ...)''
phrasing would rapidly become repetitive and cluttering; in such a case it is best to make it clear that the link is to such a topical date article, e.g. in [[2007/2008 snooker season|the 2007/2008 season]]
, rather than in [[2007/2008 snooker season|2007/2008]]
. Piped links must never be used in full dates (e.g. [[January 1]], [[1991 in music|1991]]
) because they break the date-formatting function. Topical date links should only be used when the event in question is genuinely notable in the context of the year (or month, etc.) article to which would link.Revised version below.
I think this will adequately address the cases that need to be addressed so far, and would actually slightly help advance the growing consensus that a replacement for the date formatting function is needed so that dates are only linked when there is a contextual/informative reason for linking them.
PS: If we wanted to address piped links other than dates, I believe that is a way bigger matter, and should be discussed at WT:MOS, probably with an RfC, since it is bound to be highly controversial.
— SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[[1991 in music|1991]]
) in the main prose of an article in most cases. Use an explicit cross-reference, e.g. ''(see [[1991 in music]])''
, if it is appropriate to link a year to such an article at all. Exceptions:[[January 1]], [[1991 in music|1991]]
) because they break the date-formatting function. When using piped links, it is best to clearly indicate that the link is to such a topical date article, e.g. in [[2007/2008 snooker season|the 2007/2008 season]]
, rather than in [[2007/2008 snooker season|2007/2008]]
I think input from more editors is required before removing "surprise links" from every article. It should be discussed at the village pump. -- Pixelface ( talk) 12:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
If you do this, then I think that, if a date appears within parentheses, it should automatically be replaced with "(see XXXX in music)" (or "video gaming" or whatever). SharkD ( talk) 03:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
SOME_RANDOM_FILM_NAME (1993)
, on one hand, versus SOME_VERY_SIGNIFICANT_FILM_NAME took the
1993 "Best Picture"
Oscar
on the other. And that probably isn't even a good example, really. It is hard to come up with a generalized case for when one should make such links; it is much easier to say that most of them should simply be deleted, as blue-link "noise". —
SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)It's on "Autoformatting and linking". Can't see the point of the continued presence of the tag. Tony (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record I want to call for any last discussion/debate that anyone feels is needed. The #Re-proposal above seems to not be truly objectionable to anyone, even if it not a bright line in the sand, if I may mix a few metaphors. A possible exception is SharkD, but I think the concerns raised by that editor are addressed (and I speak only for myself on that observation). I think that the re-proposal (as re-re-proposed; follow the boldface) does represent actual consensus on the usage, and also feel that consensus may change on the matter to make the line brighter, one way or another, some time in the future. It is better to have some advice on the issue than either no advice, or, worse yet, advice so obsolete that everyone ignores it (since the latter case simply weakens MoS as a whole - the more it is treated as optional or theoretical, the more wildly inconsistent WP articles will become). — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | 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 85 | ← | Archive 88 | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | → | Archive 95 |
Just recently noticed that MediaWiki is using the IEC prefixes: Search
Inconsistently, though... Image
Isn't that cute... -- mattb 23:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Currently, the section reads:
This is misleading. Someone not familiar with the situation can read it as meaning that dates are autoformatted automatically, with no action by an editor required. Since this page gives guidance towards editors, it should be rephrased to do just that. My suggestion is:
The autoformat is not something which is enabled by the editor. Each user sets their own autoformat preferences. However, proper editing facilitates the autoformat, while omitting the square brackets means that autoformat will not work. Neier 12:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I share Tony's view. I too would discourage the use of the dysfunctional autoformatting system. In the continuum of forbidding to mandating, the mos is very close to mandating. I support any move back along the continuum away from mandating it. Lightmouse 08:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
(Outdent) The response included:
Lack of substantive response means that none of us feels like writing the code, generally. If any of the 70 Wikipedians who were willing to spend a few seconds to sign a petition are willing and able to spend a few days or more writing the appropriate code and revising it in response to criticism, it might (but might not, admittedly) get approved. I'm not willing to commit (no pun intended) to review the patch, but another developer might be.
Gee, thanks. On the WP page that led to this push, there are now 85 signatories. I'm sure more would sign on now. But what's the use?
Full discourse is at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4582
BTW, other problems with the system are that, for example, you can't slash ("The air-raids on the night of 30/31 May"), you can't use date ranges ("20–27 August"); there are others I can't recall right now. Tony (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
And the archives here. Tony (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this item should be added to "exceptions" in the section "Spelling out numbers":
This convention is actually used in the section about units of measurement, without being mentioned explicitly. Han-Kwang ( t) 22:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Well Tony1, if you don't like the wording, how about commenting on the wording here? Han-Kwang ( t) 11:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
In prose, the unit of measurement should always be spelled out, so this is only relevant to infoboxes, tables, parentheses, and the like, where the numbers are never spelled out anyway. — Centrx→ talk • 04:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know the conventions of how amendments to MoS pages are supposed to be done. I made a suggestion here, that I think makes reasonable sense, although the exact wording and its dealing with boundary cases might need to be polished. So my fellow Wikipedians, if you generally agree with my proposition, please add it (rephrased or not) to the MoS page. If not, say so, and leave the page as it is. But the ambiguous way the proposal has been dealt with so far looks like a waste of time for me, so I'm removing this page from my watchlist. Han-Kwang ( t) 18:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
This strikes me as WP:BEANS. The number of editors going around doing "eight km" are near zero; there is no consensus I'm aware of that "8 kilometers" is offensive to anyone who is not so obsessed with grammatical nitpicks that even the MOS regulars think they are insane. I.e., where is the actual problem? That said, I don't mind a one-liner addition to MOSNUM that "eight km" is off-limits; I just don't think it's really necessary. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This is merger of several related discussions and proposals. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking for some clarification about when dates should be linked. In the Autoformatting and linking section of the MOS, the last bullet reads:
"Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic. Piped links to pages that are more focused on a topic are possible (
[[1997 in South African sport|1997]]
), but cannot be used in full dates, where they break the date-linking function."
Does the sentence in boldface (my emphasis) mean:
1. That dates (using any combiations of days, months, and year) should only be linked if the linked date will add to the reader's understanding.
2. That only full dates (i.e.
November 1,
2007) should be linked, but not dates like
November
2007.
Another Wiki user has been trying to tell me that the latter is the case, while I have been trying to indicate that the first meaning is correct. (The discussion can be viewed here: User_talk:NatureBoyMD.) Which is correct? - NatureBoyMD 21:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The albums project contains the following:
[[1991 in music|1991]]
, instead add (see
1991 in music) where you feel it is appropriate.I propose that we make that generic and include it. Lightmouse 11:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
[[1991 in music|1991]]
can make perfect sense in a table, for example.
Septentrionalis
PMAnderson 06:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
[[1997 in South African sport|1997]]
), but cannot be used in full dates, where they break the date-linking function.[[1991 in music|1991]]
) in the main prose of an article. Use "(see [[1991 in music]])", if it is appropriate to link a year to such an article at all. In places where compact presetation is important (some tables, infoboxes and lists), piped links may be useful. Piped links must never be used in full dates (e.g. [[January 1]], [[1991 in music|1991]]
) because they break the date-formatting function. Piped topical year links should only be made when the event in question is genuinely notable in the context of the year article to which would link.New version to address issue raised by Woody:
[[1991 in music|1991]]
) in the main prose of an article. Use an explicit cross-reference, e.g. ''(see [[1991 in music]])''
, if it is appropriate to link a year to such an article at all. In places where compact presentation is important (some tables, infoboxes and lists), piped links may be useful. Another exception is the main prose of articles in which such links are used heavily, as if often the case with sportsperson biographies that link to numerous separate season articles, in which the ''(see ...)''
phrasing would rapidly become repetitive and cluttering; in such a case it is best to make it clear that the link is to such a topical date article, e.g. in [[2007/2008 snooker season|the 2007/2008 season]]
, rather than in [[2007/2008 snooker season|2007/2008]]
. Piped links must never be used in full dates (e.g. [[January 1]], [[1991 in music|1991]]
) because they break the date-formatting function. Topical date links should only be used when the event in question is genuinely notable in the context of the year (or month, etc.) article to which would link.Revised version below.
I think this will adequately address the cases that need to be addressed so far, and would actually slightly help advance the growing consensus that a replacement for the date formatting function is needed so that dates are only linked when there is a contextual/informative reason for linking them.
PS: If we wanted to address piped links other than dates, I believe that is a way bigger matter, and should be discussed at WT:MOS, probably with an RfC, since it is bound to be highly controversial.
— SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[[1991 in music|1991]]
) in the main prose of an article in most cases. Use an explicit cross-reference, e.g. ''(see [[1991 in music]])''
, if it is appropriate to link a year to such an article at all. Exceptions:[[January 1]], [[1991 in music|1991]]
) because they break the date-formatting function. When using piped links, it is best to clearly indicate that the link is to such a topical date article, e.g. in [[2007/2008 snooker season|the 2007/2008 season]]
, rather than in [[2007/2008 snooker season|2007/2008]]
I think input from more editors is required before removing "surprise links" from every article. It should be discussed at the village pump. -- Pixelface ( talk) 12:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
If you do this, then I think that, if a date appears within parentheses, it should automatically be replaced with "(see XXXX in music)" (or "video gaming" or whatever). SharkD ( talk) 03:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
SOME_RANDOM_FILM_NAME (1993)
, on one hand, versus SOME_VERY_SIGNIFICANT_FILM_NAME took the
1993 "Best Picture"
Oscar
on the other. And that probably isn't even a good example, really. It is hard to come up with a generalized case for when one should make such links; it is much easier to say that most of them should simply be deleted, as blue-link "noise". —
SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)It's on "Autoformatting and linking". Can't see the point of the continued presence of the tag. Tony (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record I want to call for any last discussion/debate that anyone feels is needed. The #Re-proposal above seems to not be truly objectionable to anyone, even if it not a bright line in the sand, if I may mix a few metaphors. A possible exception is SharkD, but I think the concerns raised by that editor are addressed (and I speak only for myself on that observation). I think that the re-proposal (as re-re-proposed; follow the boldface) does represent actual consensus on the usage, and also feel that consensus may change on the matter to make the line brighter, one way or another, some time in the future. It is better to have some advice on the issue than either no advice, or, worse yet, advice so obsolete that everyone ignores it (since the latter case simply weakens MoS as a whole - the more it is treated as optional or theoretical, the more wildly inconsistent WP articles will become). — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)