User:Dabomb87/Summary of the Date Linking RFCs

Original material taken from here.

Summary

While the intentions of the December Date Linking RFCs were in good faith, and provided for a much-needed survey of community consensus, the RFCs' creators forgot an essential step: the collation and analysis of the raw data.

Margin of error in raw counts where total number of votes exceeds 100 is ±3.

RfC 1: The three proposals

Main page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Three proposals for change to MOSNUM

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Three proposals for change to MOSNUM#Proposal 1: A return to the linking of dates and date fragments – Overwhelming consensus that date fragments should not be linked unless there is a reason to do so; and at that, very rarely. Linking all dates is pointless; they should be linked only when they are relevant. There will be very few cases when a date link is relevant to the context. (7 support [7.2%] / 190 oppose [92.8%])
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Three proposals for change to MOSNUM#Proposal 2: A return to date autoformatting – While some are opposed to the autoformatting mechanism itself, some are only against the current autoformatting method of wikilinking full dates. Supporters of autoformatting believe that it is necessary to prevent date format wars, to suit user preferences and for consistency. Opposers believe that autoformatting is unnecessary because the differences are trivial, the current method of autoformatting is harmful, and that it is too complex for little gain. (25 support [16.4%] / 127 oppose [83.6%] )
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Three proposals for change to MOSNUM#Proposal 3: Automated/semi-automated compliance with any particular guideline requires consensus – The use of automatic or semi-automatic processes to bring articles in line with the style guide does not require special consensus. The majority believes that the existing bot-approval process is enough. Supporters do not believe that bots are capable of making edits in an area where human discretion may be needed. There is little distinction from all commentators over the use of semi-automated (human oversighted) edits; those who mention it believe that these type of edits are within policy. (24 support [20%] / 96 oppose [80%])

RfC 2: The detailed questions

Main page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC#Deprecating the current date autoformatting – Dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting. Those who espouse the majority view also believe that date links are generally irrelevant. Opposers believe that while (for the most part) the links themselves are not helpful, deprecating autoformatting (even the current link-dependent method) would be a step back. Those who are neutral are unsure of which issue takes precedence—that of linking or of autoformatting. (247 Support [81.8%] / 48 Oppose [15.9%] / 7 Neutral [2.3%])
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC#Is some method of date autoformatting desirable? – There is definite support for some method of autoformatting. Supporters cite consistency, the importance of user customization and the ability to extract metadata as the most important reasons. Opposers believe that autoformatting is trivial and that WP:ENGVAR would work in maintaining format consistency within articles. There are several suggestions on how to implement a linkless mechanism, but none have emerged as the primary option. (80 Support [51.3%] / 69 Oppose [44.2%] / 7 Neutral [4.5%])
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC#When to link to Month-Day articles? Month-day links should be linked on a limited basis and only when relevant. The instances when they should be linked are articles about chronological items and annual events. If there are other cases, they are very limited and should be decided on by a case-by-case basis. Articles about full dates (such as July 31, 2005) exist, but there is no consensus if they should be linked to or how they should be used. Some supporters of linking month-day articles suggest linking birth and death dates. (5 Always [4.2%] / 63 Sometimes [52.5%] / 52 Never [43.3%])
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC#When to link Year articles – Year links can be made sometimes, especially in the case historical articles, although consensus leans toward less of these rather than more. When possible, use Year-in-field links. (7 Always [6.7%] / 57 Sometimes [54.3%] / 41 Never [39.0%])
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC#When to use "Year in Field" links – Although year in field links can/should be made when relevant, there is no definite consensus of how to use them yet. The method of putting a limited number of these links in a "See also" section seems to have the most traction; there was also an alternative suggestion of using {{seealso}} at the top of the article or section where a year-in-field link might be appropriate. Per WP:EGG, "hidden" links can be used in tables and infoboxes, and it is helpful if they are explicitly explained (see List of Washington Wizards head coaches for an example) (Hidden: 17 Support / 45 Oppose) (Inline: 18 Support / 28 Oppose / 2 Neutral) (Context: 3 Support / 44 Oppose / 1 Neutral) (See also: 37 Support / 15 Oppose)

Linking chronological items

Feel free to offers suggestions on language or other points on the talk page. These guidelines will be posted as a proposal following the conclusion of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking and the Date formatting and linking poll.

• Full dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting.

When to link

Month-day links

• In articles about chronological items (Ex: 1789, January, 1940s, Sunday). (It's unclear whether year-in-topic articles are included in this category.)
• In articles about holidays that fall on the same day every year (Ex: Christmas Day, April Fools' Day, Cinco de Mayo).
• In very limited instances where linking to such an article would provide a global and historical context (Ex: Armistice Day).
• Other instances that would be decided on an article-by-article basis and according to consensus gained on the article's talk page. Such instances should be rare and should to be limited to those in which a date link would significantly deepen reader's understanding of the article's topic.

Year links

• In articles about chronological items (Ex: June 17, January, 1940s, Sunday) and years in a specific field (Ex: 1990 in art, 1967 in sports).
• On a limited basis, in articles of a historical nature where it is not possible to link to a more relevant event. For example, in an article about German history, instead of linking to 1942, it might be more beneficial to link to World War II.
• In the "See also" section one could add a year article link if that year article puts that specific event in the context of the year. (e. g. listing "see 1346" in the "See also" section of Battle of Crécy)
• As a {{seealso}} tag in a paragraph where the date is relevant to that paragraph.
• In some timelines.
• Link to year-in-field links whenever said links' content would be more relevant to the subject than plain year links.

Centuries, decades, months and days of the week

• Centuries and decades—In articles about a certain historical period or a series of related events that occur over multiple years (Ex: Punic Wars, Roaring Twenties, Age of Enlightenment).
• Months and days of the week—In articles about a subject that concerns the nature of a month or day (Ex: April showers (weather phenomenon))

See also

• User:Tony1/RfCs on dates
• [1]