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. |
Years and dates archives |
---|
|
I've just made clearer the rôle (or lack of it) of a comma betwen month/day and year (many editors, especially new ones, see the comma in the example and think that this is the recommended format — strandge but true). I've also explained what happens when "th", for example, is added to a date such as [[March 17]], and thus why it shouldn't be done. (You'd have expected people with preference settings like mine to see it as "17 Marchth", but the software's cleverer than that.) -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 20:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
[[February 17]], [[1958]]
or [[February 17]] [[1958]]
→
February 17
1958I can't make out what your objection is; if you're prepared to discuss it civilly, could you explain? You seem to be assuming that everyone who forks Wikipedia will use U.S. formatting. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 18:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately Matthew is insisting on reverting to his version without bothering to discuss it here. I'm going to start a news thread at the bottom of this page, in the hope that it will attract more eyes and opinions. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 14:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A while ago I included a short explanation that adding a comma between day/month and year was unnecessary, as it made no difference to what the reader sees. I did this because it was clear that many editors didn't know that this was the case. There was a short discussion, one editor agreeing outright, and another expressing reservations, but saying that he'd go along with it. eleven days later, Matthew ( talk · contribs) started leaving comments at the original discussion (which I missed), and then reverted my change (plus another even less controversial change). He now insists on deleting the new text.
My view is that consensus was achieved concerning the insertion of the material, and someone arriving at a later stage needs to achieve consensus to remove the material. (The removal of the material without that consensus is, I believe, disruptive at best.) With that in mind, would editors join in the discussion and give their opinions? The text in question is:
Adding a comma between month/day and year is unnecessary, as it has no effect on what is seen:
[[February 17]], [[1958]]
→ February 17, 1958
Earlier discussion can be seen above. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 14:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
How can it be instruction creep when it doesn't give any instruction? It simply lets editors know that they don't have to place a comma because the software does it for them. As it was before, it gave the misleading impression that one had to include a comma in order for one to show in the article. This insisatence on refusing to mention a simple fact is perplexing at best. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 20:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
In fact what seems to be being argued by Matthew, at least, is that the policy should be that the comma be used, which is why he objects to letting people know that it needn't be. That isn't in fact policy, and I can see no objection to lettin editors know the facts of the matter (length of the MoS surely can't be a serious issue — what can a couple of short lines matter?). I also see many edits in which people do no more than add commas to dates; it's a waste of their time and of resources. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 15:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem with adding a couple of short lines is that lots of people want to add a couple of short lines, and the MoS has a tendency to grow and grow.
Let me put it another way — if, as you say, it doesn't give any instruction, why would it belong in the Manual of Style? Isn't the purpose of the Manual of Style to give instructions (or at least recommendations)?
Stephen Turner ( Talk) 20:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
We seem to have the following position: Patrick, Pomte, Peter, and I are happy to include the information; Matthew is against it, and Stephen Turner is still against it I think. DES has commented, but not yet declared an opinion. Is that right? -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 08:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
In discussions of this kind, someone who says that they don't oppose is surely to be included in the consensus to allow it. I agree, though, that more views would be welccme. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 19:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The comma between month/day and year has no effect on how the date is displayed with the current Wikimedia software:
[[February 17]], [[1958]]
→ February 17, 1958[[February 17]] [[1958]]
→ February 17 1958
I suppose that informing editors that the comma is unnecessary does make clear that removing it is allowed; but then removing it is allowed... -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 22:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to show more allowed combinations that do not effect the validity of the resulting format:
[[May 31]], [[2007]]
→
May 31,
2007[[May 31]],[[2007]]
→
May 31,
2007[[May 31]] [[2007]]
→
May 31
2007[[May 31]][[2007]]
→
May 31
2007[[31 May]], [[2007]]
→
31 May,
2007[[31 May]],[[2007]]
→
31 May,
2007[[31 May]] [[2007]]
→
31 May
2007[[31 May]][[2007]]
→
31 May
2007[[2007-05-31]]
→
2007-05-31− Woodstone 08:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
But no-one's sugesting that "May 31 2007" can be left; what can be left is [[May 31]] [[2007]]. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 10:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Currently this page has instructions about "how" to link, but not "when" to link. I tried adding some information from one of the other guidelines, but was just immediately reverted as "controversial." Personally, I don't care what the guideline is, but I think it's important that something be said. This is what I had added:
===When to link=== * Because of the [[m:Help:Preferences|date preference formatting]], dates which include a month and day should be linked, so that they will display properly: [[April 22]] or [[22 April]] will display in the same way, depending on a user's settings. * Standalone months and days of the week should generally not be linked. * Standalone years do not need to be linked but some users prefer it. * Dates in section headers should generally not be linked.
Where exactly is the controversy here? My own feeling is that only those dates that are significant should be linked, rather than linking every single date on a page. But I'll go with whatever the consensus is. -- El on ka 23:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Would it be considered over linking if you link the same date over and over, especially within the same section? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying that if August 18 is listed 3 times in the same section, and you link every instance in that same section, it's over linking. You aren't doing anything but linking to the same page 3 (or however many) times within just a few lines. I could understand if you are linking at the top of the page, and then doing so later on in the page, but not when you can easily see both links in the same section going to the same page. Per the overlinking section of the MOS: A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article, as in the example of overlinking which follows: "Excessive" is more than once for the same term, in a line or a paragraph, because in this case one or more duplicate links will almost certainly then appear needlessly on the viewer's screen. Remember, the purpose of links is to direct the reader to a new spot at the point(s) where the reader is most likely to take a temporary detour due to needing more information. " What this page does not make clear, and if this is what you are trying to convey, then maybe the MOS needs some tweaking, but the page does not make clear if "every instance" of a date is supposed to be linked. What it says is that you should always link a date, but it doesn't say that you should link every instance of that same date. It would contradict the MOS for overlinking. If this is what should be done (meaning, if you should linke every instance of the date, no matter how close it is to its next instance) then the MOS should be adjusted to reflect that specifically. If it was, I wouldn't be here with my question in the first place. Unfortunately, the page isn't clear about linking "every instance". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
This seems to me to conflict with the "brilliant prose" requirement for FAs. In any editor's mind, you don't want to overdo dates. It just get hard to swallow. How about Wikipedia:Use common sense? I personally think it's a good rule in the vast majority of cases, but being familiar with this one, I think we have an exception. Wrad 03:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
So, according to this article, it is proper to link only years; for example, should a sentence read "In 1970," or "In 1970," Thanks — User:Christopher Mann McKay user talk 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I came here about the same point. First, different parts of the MoS contradict each other on this; here, there's no indication yars shouldn't be linked to unless they're particularly relevant, elsewhere the linking of ywars is given as an example of overlinking (in some places the use of piped "Easter-egg" links (such as [[1920 in music|1920]] is strongly deporecated, inothers it's offered as an approach favoured by some editors). Couldn't there be some consistency?
I don't understand Neier's point, incidentally; why does the lack of a day and month make the year relevant? -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 11:49, 21 May 2007 (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. |
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. |
Years and dates archives |
---|
|
I've just made clearer the rôle (or lack of it) of a comma betwen month/day and year (many editors, especially new ones, see the comma in the example and think that this is the recommended format — strandge but true). I've also explained what happens when "th", for example, is added to a date such as [[March 17]], and thus why it shouldn't be done. (You'd have expected people with preference settings like mine to see it as "17 Marchth", but the software's cleverer than that.) -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 20:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
[[February 17]], [[1958]]
or [[February 17]] [[1958]]
→
February 17
1958I can't make out what your objection is; if you're prepared to discuss it civilly, could you explain? You seem to be assuming that everyone who forks Wikipedia will use U.S. formatting. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 18:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately Matthew is insisting on reverting to his version without bothering to discuss it here. I'm going to start a news thread at the bottom of this page, in the hope that it will attract more eyes and opinions. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 14:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A while ago I included a short explanation that adding a comma between day/month and year was unnecessary, as it made no difference to what the reader sees. I did this because it was clear that many editors didn't know that this was the case. There was a short discussion, one editor agreeing outright, and another expressing reservations, but saying that he'd go along with it. eleven days later, Matthew ( talk · contribs) started leaving comments at the original discussion (which I missed), and then reverted my change (plus another even less controversial change). He now insists on deleting the new text.
My view is that consensus was achieved concerning the insertion of the material, and someone arriving at a later stage needs to achieve consensus to remove the material. (The removal of the material without that consensus is, I believe, disruptive at best.) With that in mind, would editors join in the discussion and give their opinions? The text in question is:
Adding a comma between month/day and year is unnecessary, as it has no effect on what is seen:
[[February 17]], [[1958]]
→ February 17, 1958
Earlier discussion can be seen above. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 14:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
How can it be instruction creep when it doesn't give any instruction? It simply lets editors know that they don't have to place a comma because the software does it for them. As it was before, it gave the misleading impression that one had to include a comma in order for one to show in the article. This insisatence on refusing to mention a simple fact is perplexing at best. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 20:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
In fact what seems to be being argued by Matthew, at least, is that the policy should be that the comma be used, which is why he objects to letting people know that it needn't be. That isn't in fact policy, and I can see no objection to lettin editors know the facts of the matter (length of the MoS surely can't be a serious issue — what can a couple of short lines matter?). I also see many edits in which people do no more than add commas to dates; it's a waste of their time and of resources. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 15:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem with adding a couple of short lines is that lots of people want to add a couple of short lines, and the MoS has a tendency to grow and grow.
Let me put it another way — if, as you say, it doesn't give any instruction, why would it belong in the Manual of Style? Isn't the purpose of the Manual of Style to give instructions (or at least recommendations)?
Stephen Turner ( Talk) 20:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
We seem to have the following position: Patrick, Pomte, Peter, and I are happy to include the information; Matthew is against it, and Stephen Turner is still against it I think. DES has commented, but not yet declared an opinion. Is that right? -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 08:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
In discussions of this kind, someone who says that they don't oppose is surely to be included in the consensus to allow it. I agree, though, that more views would be welccme. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 19:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The comma between month/day and year has no effect on how the date is displayed with the current Wikimedia software:
[[February 17]], [[1958]]
→ February 17, 1958[[February 17]] [[1958]]
→ February 17 1958
I suppose that informing editors that the comma is unnecessary does make clear that removing it is allowed; but then removing it is allowed... -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 22:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to show more allowed combinations that do not effect the validity of the resulting format:
[[May 31]], [[2007]]
→
May 31,
2007[[May 31]],[[2007]]
→
May 31,
2007[[May 31]] [[2007]]
→
May 31
2007[[May 31]][[2007]]
→
May 31
2007[[31 May]], [[2007]]
→
31 May,
2007[[31 May]],[[2007]]
→
31 May,
2007[[31 May]] [[2007]]
→
31 May
2007[[31 May]][[2007]]
→
31 May
2007[[2007-05-31]]
→
2007-05-31− Woodstone 08:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
But no-one's sugesting that "May 31 2007" can be left; what can be left is [[May 31]] [[2007]]. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 10:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Currently this page has instructions about "how" to link, but not "when" to link. I tried adding some information from one of the other guidelines, but was just immediately reverted as "controversial." Personally, I don't care what the guideline is, but I think it's important that something be said. This is what I had added:
===When to link=== * Because of the [[m:Help:Preferences|date preference formatting]], dates which include a month and day should be linked, so that they will display properly: [[April 22]] or [[22 April]] will display in the same way, depending on a user's settings. * Standalone months and days of the week should generally not be linked. * Standalone years do not need to be linked but some users prefer it. * Dates in section headers should generally not be linked.
Where exactly is the controversy here? My own feeling is that only those dates that are significant should be linked, rather than linking every single date on a page. But I'll go with whatever the consensus is. -- El on ka 23:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Would it be considered over linking if you link the same date over and over, especially within the same section? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying that if August 18 is listed 3 times in the same section, and you link every instance in that same section, it's over linking. You aren't doing anything but linking to the same page 3 (or however many) times within just a few lines. I could understand if you are linking at the top of the page, and then doing so later on in the page, but not when you can easily see both links in the same section going to the same page. Per the overlinking section of the MOS: A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article, as in the example of overlinking which follows: "Excessive" is more than once for the same term, in a line or a paragraph, because in this case one or more duplicate links will almost certainly then appear needlessly on the viewer's screen. Remember, the purpose of links is to direct the reader to a new spot at the point(s) where the reader is most likely to take a temporary detour due to needing more information. " What this page does not make clear, and if this is what you are trying to convey, then maybe the MOS needs some tweaking, but the page does not make clear if "every instance" of a date is supposed to be linked. What it says is that you should always link a date, but it doesn't say that you should link every instance of that same date. It would contradict the MOS for overlinking. If this is what should be done (meaning, if you should linke every instance of the date, no matter how close it is to its next instance) then the MOS should be adjusted to reflect that specifically. If it was, I wouldn't be here with my question in the first place. Unfortunately, the page isn't clear about linking "every instance". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
This seems to me to conflict with the "brilliant prose" requirement for FAs. In any editor's mind, you don't want to overdo dates. It just get hard to swallow. How about Wikipedia:Use common sense? I personally think it's a good rule in the vast majority of cases, but being familiar with this one, I think we have an exception. Wrad 03:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
So, according to this article, it is proper to link only years; for example, should a sentence read "In 1970," or "In 1970," Thanks — User:Christopher Mann McKay user talk 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I came here about the same point. First, different parts of the MoS contradict each other on this; here, there's no indication yars shouldn't be linked to unless they're particularly relevant, elsewhere the linking of ywars is given as an example of overlinking (in some places the use of piped "Easter-egg" links (such as [[1920 in music|1920]] is strongly deporecated, inothers it's offered as an approach favoured by some editors). Couldn't there be some consistency?
I don't understand Neier's point, incidentally; why does the lack of a day and month make the year relevant? -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 11:49, 21 May 2007 (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. |