Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Datestempprotectedsection

disputed tag

{{editprotected}}

This should have a tag, probably {{disputedtag}} to show that it is protected because of a dispute, and therefore should have a grain of salt before being taken as guidance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please could you obtain agreement for adding this tag on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No, probably not; this section has been protected because two members of the related arbcom case were revert-warring against such a tag - but the existence of a revert war, and of an arbcom case, should prove the existence of such a dispute. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this section should have a clearly visible indicator that it has been split to a separate page that is protected, and is not considered stable. It should also indicate whether questions regarding this section are supposed to go to be added to the main MOSNUM talk page, or this talk page. It is all very confusing. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Just want to note that a disputed tag would not be correct here, since everything currently in the relevant section was approved by the community through the RfC. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Over 40% of the community (at the poll) wants date autoformatting of some form, so I am not confident that "Dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting" is stable, given that date linking is the only current method of autoformatting. I personally hope that the 40% accept that this current form of date formatting is undesirable to so many that we may need to take one step back (in their opinion) before we can go forward (if/when another date formatting system arrives).

Also 30% of the community (at the poll) wants something other than "Year articles should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter", so the old dispute about that chunk of MOSNUM has not been resolved by this RFC.

And the page is locked, and has remained locked since being disputed. I wont push for a disputed tag, as there is no current dispute, but I don't want to see the other 40% and 30% marginalised by assertions that this locked page is undisputed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the fact that >80% of the community said that we shouldn't link dates for autoformatting purposes makes the "dates should not be linked ... for ... autoformatting" text stable. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope so. But that was an earlier poll, and it wasn't as neutrally framed or well attended. The ongoing bot RFC also gives some insight into how the community feels about autoformatting. Until this section of the MOS is unprotected and subsequently stable, this is all conjecture. The proof will be in the pudding, as they say. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

update per WP:DATEPOLL

I don't agree with Ryan's analysis. I would say that the number of voters who supported year option 1 and indicated that they agreed with more than the subtitle, is less than 50% of the total number of voters. I'm not going to edit war, but I do not agree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Update following closing of arbitration case

{{editprotected}} Please change the template to read as follows:

Restriction regarding linking/delinking: According to the Date delinking arbitration case, for six months, no mass date delinking should be performed unless the Arbitration Committee is notified of a community-approved process for the mass delinking. (Remedy in place since 21:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC))

Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done. I tweaked your box a bit. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm also considering adding a footnote to a list of examples of date delinking that were approved by several arbitrators as not being classified as mass delinking. See this. What do others think? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to MSGJ. I think a link via footnote is well worth considering, since it would provide direct insight for admins and other editors on the arbitrators' opinions on how "mass date delinking" is defined. I think everyone agrees it's important for all to know the boundaries, as best as they can be weighed up. Can it be done neatly within the box, dabomb? Can you show us an example? What does MSGJ think? Tony (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Like this? Gary King (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly right, Gary. Thanks! Dabomb87 (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That was quite a simple fix; I was overthinking things. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Footnote text could be: "The opinions of five of the arbitrators in the case are set out here." Tony (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I like it. What do others think? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Editprotected request

{{editprotected}} Created new shortcut for WP:MOSDB. Wish to add: MOS:DOB, I found it to be a more helpful shortcut. -- œ^™ 22:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERDATE

There is something flawed in the statement of this section. On one hand, "In the main text of articles, the form 1996– ... is preferred in infoboxes", and yet "The form since 1996 should be used in ... article text and infoboxes". Which is it? And also, I don't see anything wrong with using "xxxx-present" in an infobox or a list. It doesn't flow well in prose which is where I support "since xxxx", but otherwise it need not be so awkward-looking. The section argues against it because "'the present' is a constantly moving target", but using "since xxxx" uses "the present" as a reference point. BOVINEBOY2008 00:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

here's the text of WP:OTHERDATE as it now stands - i agree that it is weirdly unclear, as well as pretty unreasonable:

Dates that are given as ranges should follow the same patterns as given above for birth and death dates. Ranges that come up to the present (as of the time that the information was added to the article) should generally be given in ways that prevent their becoming counterfactually obsolete, e.g. from 1996 onward (as of October 2007), not from 1996 to the present; "the present" is a constantly moving target. In the main text of articles, the form 1996– (with no date after the en-dash) should not be used, though it is preferred in infoboxes and other crowded templates or lists, with the caveat that they may need to be examined by editors more frequently to see if they need to be updated; it is helpful to other editors to add an HTML comment immediately after such constructions, giving the as-of date, e.g.: <!--as of 10 October 2007-->. The form since 1996 should be used in favor of 1996–present in article text and infoboxes.

i understand that there are situations in which "to the present" can become obsolete faster than anyone will catch & update it, especially if it's buried somewhere in a text. but the prohibition of "YYYY-the present" in info boxes seems pretty outlandish, especially since that exact form is very widely used in infoboxes.

can we alter that bit to leave the phrasing of info boxes up to the relevant projects or template pages? and then can we try rephrasing this section so that it's comprehensible? Sssoul (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it can simply be solved if "and infoboxes" is dropped from the last sentence. BOVINEBOY2008 12:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} Please change in the "Other date ranges" the sentence

"The form since 1996 should be used in favor of 1996–present in article text and infoboxes."

to the sentence

"The form since 1996 should be used in article text while the form 1996–present is prefered in infoboxes." BOVINEBOY2008 :) 15:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Note to editing admin: even though MOSNUM is unprotected, the section to which the edit is requested is protected. The subpage can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Datestempprotectedsection. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There's still a contradiction.

"In the main text of articles, the form 1996– (with no date after the en-dash) should not be used, though it is preferred in infoboxes and other crowded templates or lists"

"the form "1996–present" is preferred in infoboxes."

So, which is preferred in infoboxes, "1996–" or "1996–present"?

Also, this change was a little hastily done, don't you think? I don't see consensus to clean up the original contradiction either in favor of "1996–" or "since 1996", so why was it done in favor of the former? Timmeh (review me) 17:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I put this in a different spot and no one responded for several days, so I just assumed it was agreed. There is definitely still a contradiction and it needs more work. I personally don't link "1996&ndash". It looks like an error. I think that overall, "since 1996" should be used in text, "1996–present" in infoboxes and tables, and "1996–" never. Sorry that it was so hastily done, I am willing to talk it out. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 19:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe bringing this up at WT:MOSNUM, rather than this subpage, would get it more attention. I don't really care what's used in the infobox, as long as we have agreed through consensus to use one method consistently across all articles. Both methods have their advantages, but I'd prefer to see just one recommended for infoboxes. Timmeh (review me) 20:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

WT:MOSNUM was where I brought it up originally, see Wikipedia_talk:MOSNUM#WP:OTHERDATE and was moved here. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 20:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It may be more relevant here, but I don't think it's getting enough exposure to the community to attain an accurate consensus. Timmeh (review me) 00:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been a few days and nobody has fixed the contradiction or even responded here. Would you mind asking an admin to at least clear up the current contradiction, Bovineboy? Timmeh (review me) 21:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I am open to any and all suggestions. I don't know who to ask about this kind of thing though. Would these edits make sense?

Dates that are given as ranges should follow the same patterns as given above for birth and death dates. Ranges that come up to the present (as of the time that the information was added to the article) should generally be given in ways that prevent their becoming counterfactually obsolete, e.g. from 1996 onward (as of October 2007), not from 1996 to the present; "the present" is a constantly moving target. In the main text of articles, the form 1996–present (with no date after the en-dash) should not be used, though it is preferred in infoboxes and other crowded templates or lists, with the caveat that they may need to be examined by editors more frequently to see if they need to be updated; it is helpful to other editors to add an HTML comment immediately after such constructions, giving the as-of date, e.g.: <!--as of 10 October 2007-->. The form since 1996 should be used in favor of 1996–present in article text.

I think it should be generally avoided to use the form 1996– in general as it looks incomplete and doesn't solve the constantly moving target problem. And trying to explain paranthetically when the information was gathered isn't really something one would see in formal writing. Would it be possible to let editors now with a tag like {{tl:Asof}} does. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 23:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The above version looks fine to me. If nobody is opposed to it, we can get an admin to implement it. Timmeh (review me) 00:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} It is requested that changes be made in the other date ranges section in accordance with BovineBoy's example (minus the strikeouts and bold text), shown directly above my last comment. Timmeh (review me) 01:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, I think. Re-request if the new version is not what you wanted.  Skomorokh  01:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks. Timmeh (review me) 02:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please ban MM/DD/YYYY and DD/MM/YYYY

{{editrequest}} Please add the following:

• Do not use date formats such as 03/04/2005, as they are ambiguous (it could refer to 3 April or to March 4). For consistency, do not use such formats even if the day number is greater than 12.

after the fourth bullet in "Dates" ("Yearless dates ..."). See WT:MOSNUM#C'mon... for the discussion leading to this. --___A. di M. 09:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

How was this ever taken out of MOSNUM? Rich Farmbrough, 14:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC).

Request to unprotect this and move back into MOSNUM

I don't think the issues that forced this section to be protected are a problem anymore, so it should be unprotected and moved into its own section. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I'll let this post stand for a day or two just to see if anyone else comments, and then move the section back into the main page. (Please give me a reminder on my talk page if I don't get to it by early next week.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckatz (talk • contribs) 22:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)