User:J JMesserly/RFC-plain text date templates

Background: See Summary of Plain text issues

Arguments in favor of allowing plain text dates

 * Plain text date templates are more intuitive and in most cases require no documentation to use since they are WYSIWYG.
 * Plain text dates increase accuracy. It is easier to spot typos and contradictions and increase the opportunities for corrections since it is simple for inexperienced editors to understand how to fix an error.
 * Addition of further parameters to the numeric date templates is problematic, since this would make an already obtuse syntax even more difficult to understand. For example, dates prior to 1752 are not yet supported by the numeric templates.  The plain text templates addressed this by allowing the user to specify a modern date equivalent of the old calendar (non Gregorian) dates.  Adopting this solution with the plain text templates creates wikitext that deepens the obscurity:.
 * Templates that allow date parameters would become obtuse if they were required to accept numeric parameters in place of plain text parameters. Event templates require location, description, and individuals.  For example  allows  15 different parameters.  Expressing the dates as numeric values would require 6 parameters alone, and make such templates needlessly complex.

Arguments against allowing plain text dates

 * 1) WP already has too many date templates that do the same thing. We need fewer, not more.  Date template usage needs to be rationalized, and those that are redundant should be proposed for deletion.  This may be one of them.
 * 2) Dates should be recorded in a language neutral form to make cross wikipedia data exchange easier.
 * 3) Addressing Usability issues is a long overdue at Wikipedia and required a comprehensive solution rather than a piecemeal approach such as this one. Obscure syntax of templates is only one of many problems that blocks the goal that "anyone can be an editor".  Plain text templates are just a bandaid over an archaic editing paradigm that the foundation now has resources to properly address.  We should coordinate this with a more comprehensive solution.

Arguments in favor of allowing unformatted dates

 * Forced formating templates do not allow abbreviation with time spans, so "January 5, 2002–January 7, 2002" cannot be abbreviated to January 5–7, 2002.
 * Forced formatting does not allow the use of alternative formatting templates such as
 * Allows the use linked dates where appropriate (eg. December 7, 1941, September 1, 1939)

Arguments against allowing unformatted dates

 * Templates without formatted dates make it easier to violate MOSNUM guidelines since they would allow dates that violate punctuation rules or are not in day first or month first form.
 * The new templates allow the user to use linked dates.
 * This is compelling for many who want linked dates abolished, but some of those who favor linked dates are also opposed. This is because the old templates formerly always emitted linked dates.  The plain text syntax makes this optionally overriddable.