User:Tony1/Support for the removal of date autoformatting

This is a mere selection of comments supporting the move away from DA, in random order from each of three sources. The groundswell of support clearly represents a consensus for change. A small minority of users are uncomfortable with the removal of DA, and of them, a few are vocal opponents. Some of these people have already changed their minds to support the moves.

From article talk pages
These quotations are from pages that invited feedback to a proposal to remove DA from the article. None was accompanied by any negative comment.
 * Talk:Alpha Kappa Alpha: Awesome, that sounds cool. That would be fine with me.  miranda  
 * Talk:OpenBSD: Will this unlink the years too? [Irrelevant sentence removed.] Also, we should lose stuff like October 1995 as well. If it will unlink too this is probably a good step. NicM (talk)
 * Talk:Microsoft: No objection here. 67.185.253.244 (talk)
 * Talk:Freedom Monument: Personally, dates should not be displayed as links at all . —PētersV (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk:Australia: You have summarised the objections most elegantly. The wikidate thing was a kludge in the first place and although people talked about better ways of presenting dates, nothing ever happened. To my mind, the fact that date ranges could not be handled in a way that looked natural and worked for both date formats was a killer. I'll raise no objections to removing the wikidate formatting, so long as date formats for Australian subjects retain international, rather than U.S. formatting.... Pete (talk)
 * Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi: I support the removal. In addition to the points mentioned above it may be noted that due to the high number of blue linked dates, many new editors erroneously believe that linking all dates in the article is part of wikipedia policy.... How is linking to a particular date productive? I have long felt, though without any evidence other then my own use, that hardly anyone uses these links because in most cases they take him/her to an unrelated page detailing the events that occured on that date. So these links are not productive. Clearly they also do not satisfy WP:CONTEXT and therefore should be removed.--Shahab (talk)
 * Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal: It's fine with me if the date autoformatting here goes away. In my own writing I've found myself recasting a sentence to avoid adding another blue link to a section where the rest of them actually lead somewhere.  --CliffC (talk)
 * I've never liked linking dates and the 6 reasons you mention are quite compelling.... Austin Murphy (talk)


 * Talk:United States: "I don't see much value with auto-format of dates, but I would take care to replace them with an unambiguous format (i.e. 2 January, 2003 instead of 01/02/03 or 02/01/03). Mr. Magoo
 * Talk:Birmingham campaign: Go ahead, Tony. On all my FAs. --Moni3 (talk)
 * Please feel free to do so at any article where I am the major contributor (listed at User:Savidan/Contributions).... I've stopped writing with the dates formatting that way. Thanks.... Feel free to count me as a positive response for Funerary Monument to Sir John Hawkwood and Tomb of Antipope John XXIII.... I'm very satisfied. Savidan
 * Talk:IG Farben Building: I couldn't care less - go for your life if it makes you happy! --Joopercoopers (talk)
 * Talk:Fanny Imlay: I agree with all of the reasons given above and endorse removing the date links. Awadewit (talk)
 * Talk:Daylight saving time: ... the blue wikilinks from dates are distracting and are a net minus.... Eubulides (talk)
 * Talk:École Polytechnique massacre: I'm fine either way, as long as consistency within the article is maintained. Your points are all reasonable. bobanny (talk)
 * Talk:Marjory Stoneman Douglas: Go ahead, Tony. You can do this to all of my FAs. --Moni3 (talk)
 * Talk:Pierre Rossier: The dates in this article have been stripped of autoformatting [by the signed editor].... Pinkville (talk)
 * WikiProject Oregon: Since I last posted here about this topic, I have unlinked the dates in Fanno Creek, another article on which I am the main contributor. When copyediting for others who are moving an article toward FAC, I often find inconsistency in the autoformatting. I'm now asking those editors whether they prefer consistent autoformatting or consistent de-linking. My unscientific poll thus far indicates a strong preference for de-linking. I have not said this out loud before, but I don't see autoformatting as beneficial even though its intent is friendly. As a copyeditor, I have insisted on autoformatting in the past because I think it's essential to follow the style manual. Now that the manual allows the main contributors to choose, I will do as they wish. When I am the main contributor, the dates will be unlinked. Finetooth (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

MOSNUM talk

 * Autoformatting was a quick and very dirty fix that nobody in their right mind ought to have agreed to. Non-registered users see the dates as they were written. If, on the other hand, your question is why didn't the developers come up with with a system that did what many were deceived into thinking that autoformatting did, then your guess is as good as mine. Laziness? Incompetence? Ignorance? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony, as you know I was initially sceptical about the change, but I can see the reasoning behind it and I have instituted the new approach to articles in which I presently am working, to the deafening sound of no one complaining. A suggestion that may have been made before but bears repeating is to involve the project groups in the evolving discussion about autoformatting dates. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC).
 * You caught me at a moment of transition. The arguments against wikilinking dates are compelling and if I change a date, I now also remove the brackets. --Pete (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC).... In the interests of consistency, we should therefore dump all date autoformatting. The only way to deal with such autoformatted date ranges so that they appear correctly is to show both dates in full. This looks very awkward, and leads to novice editors "fixing" them for readability, and getting into a tangle of wikidates. --Pete (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC).... The autoformatting of dates was sooooo unwise because they allowed us to start using crappy-looking code for regular users to look at just so we privileged few could benefit. 21:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC).... the deafening sound of no one complaining. Heh. That's been my experience too. I've removed wikilinks from dates when I've changed them for consistency or appropriateness and nobody's jumped on me. I'd like to get rid of wikidates entirely, unless there is a bloody good reason to link the date.... --Pete Skyring (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the situation ... is that there is a consensus to discourage and or change the auto-formatting of dates - but there is no consensus to keep the existing situation.... SilkTork *YES! 09:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've always used DA, as I figured it was the best way to avoid the wrong date format, because the dates would be displayed according to user preferences. However, I had not heard the valid argument that very few readers are actually registered users, or if they are registered users than they have not set their preferences (come to think of it, I waited well over one year to set it). Now, looking at the disadvantages (and embarassed that this thought escaped me: most readers of this encyclopedia are actually readers), I have to support the deprecation of DA. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don’t mind dropping the wikilinking of dates at all, since it’s a lot of work for the benefit of very few readers [and] it cuts down on the “sea of blue.” Askari Mark (Talk) 00:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC).... A number of proposals have been made that would require developer implementation, but these have not been successful. That leaves editors with only the tools at their disposal: encouragement or deprecation of usages via MOS.... Askari Mark (Talk) 00:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely support Tony1. Turn off your auto-date prefs and and you'll see very soon that this is a no brainer. Date-linking was always an illogical and insular practice. Undo, wiki-wide, at last.... 86.44.31.35 (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * they should stay unregistered for a week or two; that”ll open their eyes to how it was a brain-damaged notion to have even considered making tools in the first place that would only benefit registered editors. Greg L (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC).... Wikipedia did an unwise foray into making formatting tools that only benefit registered editors and actually often screw things up for the majority of readers (I.P. users) . How Wikipedia thought that was a good idea is beyond me. Editors have to be intellectually fair here and get beyond the fact that they like what they see and really make the effort to see just how junked up Wikipedia becomes for the vast majority of readers. Greg L (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC).... When we over‑link, we just turn articles into a giant blue turd. Greg L (talk) 05:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)....It was unwise for the developers to have provided a tool that produces the intended effect only for registered editors. That decision was simply brain damaged. Greg L (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to defend date autoformatting,.. [subsequent statement about ISO dates] Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm convinced. I just turned off date preferences in my preferences. I've been removing bare year links on sight for a long time now, and I now intend to removed date autoformatting when I see it. -- Donald Albury 20:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ... it is finally an option to scrap autoformatting in an article I am writing if I want to, which I do. That is, autoformatting is no longer forced on me. If I want to consider the vast majority of readers who are the unregistered public, I am now allowed to do so. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC).... What an editor finds out, if that editor removes Preferences and therefore the "formatting" of autoformatting, is that any given article can be a hodge-podge of date formats. That is what 99% of readers of Wikipedia see. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC).... Since autoformatting covers up inconsistencies and screw ups from the eyes of wiki editors, it leaves the vast majority of unregistered readers, plus wiki editors without Preferences set, to see the true result, while providing everyone with a multitude of meaningless links to dates. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC).... I believe everyone recognizes a date no matter what the format. Do we really need to have "preferences" for date formatting? Are we that sensitive? —Mattisse (Talk) 17:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the three date glitches that [the removal of autoformatting has] uncovered in the main text of the Mozart article. Tony (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should end its addiction to tinkering with date formats ... Ordinary people do not care much. Wikipedia clearly does not care much about what ordinary readers see. As an issue, date format is less of a concern than regional spelling (color vs colour). Spelling can be wrong for the region but unambiguous date formats are not wrong, merely less common. Lightmouse (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Downside [of date autoformatting]: Certain usage usually goes together. "Colour" goes with "13 August 2008". "Color" goes with "August 13, 2008". Writing styles typical of the U.S. military also go with "13 August 2008". If the date style does not match the style of the rest of the article, a certain dissonance is created, which may seem more disturbing than a slightly unfamiliar date style. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Full dates are just pairs of date fragments. As far as I can see the only argument for linking is that it allows this autoformatting tool to work. But since that benefits only a tiny minority of readers, and the benefit to them is negligible anyway, this argument hardly holds water IMHO. Are there any other arguments in favour of linking that I've missed?--Kotniski (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't partaken in the fun here for quite some time; I have only just caught up, actually. I've been busy, instead, mountain-hiking, beach-going, television-watching, and ... writing User:The Duke of Waltham/Auto-formatting is evil. There is now a centralised location where the arguments against this controversial practice can be found. I hope you'll find it interesting. Waltham, The Duke of 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Read and endorsed. --Elliskev 00:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ... in the past date linking was mistaken for a good thing encouraged by the MOS. No surprise that it was done—it was the done thing. Now comes the realisation that it should never have been dreamt of. It's no long the done thing. Allowance need be made for it and the damage it brought to be undone. JIMp talk·cont 04:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)... Autoformatting is harmful, no, not all agree ... not yet ... but the word is out and the realisation of the truth of this is growing. The consensus is strong and ever strengthening. JIMp talk·cont 07:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've always used DA,... Now, looking at the disadvantages,... I have to support the deprecation of DA. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope that date autoformatting will eventually go away.... any removal should be gradual and should respect local sensitivities. EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Tony1's talk page

 * Please feel free to do so at any article where I am the major contributor (listed at User:Savidan/Contributions). I don't feel strongly enough about it to go through all my past work, but I've stopped writing with the dates formatting that way. Thanks. Savidan 04:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC) ... I've been following this DA issue pretty closely ever since you brought it to my attention. I'm surprised that its been meeting any resistance at all... Savidan
 * Well done, and thank you, for trying to get rid of it! Hope it works. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 18:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no problems with removing date autolinking. Do you need me to put the articles I shepherded to FA on a list somewhere? Karanacs (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ... I personally have no issues with a script removing date links from the text, and the same goes with the other FAs I have worked on; less busy work is good ... :) Thanks! María (habla conmigo) 15:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony, I came here to say i support your removal of the auto date format. While I agree in principle, i've just noticed the comment above [an opinion that Tony1 is trying "to sneak it through"]. I trust that procedurally all the "i"'s are dotted etc, and that there is consensus for such a (desirable) change. --Merbabu (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that your "useful feature" [a reference to Ckatz's characterisation of autoformatting] has for too long been hiding what the casual readers of this site have always seen, inconsistent date formatting within a single article. I can think of no argument in favour of date autoformatting (as it's currently implemented), and I applaud Tony for his persistence in driving this issue. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you are running some sort of bot that removes the linked dates in FAs. Thank you! Those links were so unsightly and not at all helpful for the majority of Wikipedia's readers! I can read in peace now. :) Awadewit (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Tony, I want to try out your script for removing autoformatting.... Finetooth (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw your edits to Madman Muntz and don't understand the decision to remove date autoformatting and replace with straight text. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC).... Ok, sounds fine to me. Thanks for posting the info to the talk page. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony, you mentioned somewhere you had a script for delinking dates; can you show me where and how to get it please. I spend a fair amount of time delinking dates, linked single years in particular are annoying. So an automated script would be most welcome. I've often though a dedicated 'delinking' bot would be very useful. (Ceoil sláinte 20:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC) ... Anyway where is the script? ( Ceoil sláinte 01:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC) ... Nice. How about letting me in on that sript though? ;0 ( Ceoil sláinte 02:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm around as well if there's something you need to do to hook me up with the semibot, Tony. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to your post on my userspace, yes I concur linking dates is among the most useless type of linkage.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To me blue links are much worse than dangling numbers. Blue links interfere with my ability to read an article; dangling numbers do not. So I am on the side of doing away with the links when possible, whether or not NBSPs are added. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll freely admit to having been one of those who was resistant to removing date autoformatting, but the example of Samuel Johnson has changed my mind. What's confirmed me in that change of heart is that in more than one article I've subsequently removed the autoformatting from the dates were formatted inconsistently; something that we as logged in users don't see but visitors—the people who really matter—do.... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You have my full support. Your summary of the problems with date-autoformatting are clear and precise. Nice one. Where do I sign up? SilkTork *YES! 02:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony, I'm having problems using this script. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC) ... I fixed the issue by removing SixTabs and replacing it with the pull down menus. WikEd can be temporarily turned on and off, so that isn't a problem any more either. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "[Wikilinking dates] is at best useless and at worst a distraction for the vast majority, so when I'm making some other change to an article, I'm also de-linking dates...." Colonies Chris (talk) 10:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC) [on his talk page]

Other pages

 * WikiProject video games As you already know (Tony), I fully support this idea. —Giggy 03:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WikiProject video games I support this motion. [Technical query followed] Jappalang (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WikiProject video games Support — I especially do not find date linking to be very useful, and it serves instead with video game lists to greatly bloat the sizes of those lists. (This is why I am not using linked dates for the List of Famicom games along with WP:CONTEXT and sortability issues; I can also save 6KB alone if I removed the wikilinks from the dates in the List of NES games.) MuZemike (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Olympics ... In the meantime, the general consensus has been that it looks better to not autoformat, than to have non-valuable wikilinks that are only there to generate the auto-formatting. Bluap (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Australia I think linking dates suck big time.... Peter Ballard (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sign in below to express your support

 * 1) Overlinking is a huge obstacle to building good Articles that will be a joy to read, either on paper or on-screen. Delinking of dates is an important building block towards that end.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I have never found a convincing reason for linking dates, or autoformatting them (whether the dates are linked or not). Removing these next-to-useless features will improve Wikipedia's linking system and disable a function that did not help the vast majority of our readership (IP and no-preference users). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sign in below to express your opposition
Negative responses You can find opposition at MOSNUM talk and Tony1 talk, and archives. Also at the following talk pages of seven of the 100 surveyed articles at which there was a negative comment):
 * Talk:B-17 Flying Fortress, 21–23 July, one very positive, two non-committal, one negative (who has now moved his checker board piece into the "support column")
 * Talk:Hanford Site, 24 July, by EncMstr, who is a software developer
 * Talk:Mozilla Firefox, 24 July—by Ckatz, already per my talk page.
 * Talk:M-28 (Michigan highway), 25 July—by Imzadi1979, only four dates, not much effect, and concern that citations wouldn't be changed.
 * Talk:Victoria Cross, 28, two against, two positive
 * Talk:Order of Canada, 28, four against, one uncommitted tending towards accept, and Ckatz again
 * Talk:Victoria Cross (Canada), 28, one support, same crowd vehemently opposing even my daring to raise the issue.

Users Francis Shonken, Philip Baird Shearer and Ckatz have expressed their opposition to the move; however, it has not been easy to locate their substantive arguments.

My personal analysis of the reasons for opposition, which I'm quite willing to be rebutted on, is that it comes down to one or more of the following.
 * Users with IT/programming expertise who value templates in general on WP as valuable tools for improving the project for both editors and readers.
 * Users who question why we'd want to dispense entirely with the DA function when we could lobby for its improvement.
 * Users who are deeply uncomfortable with technical or stylistic change on WP.
 * Users who are simply so used to seeing dates in blue that they feel the text is "missing something" without it: the "comfortable old shoe" syndrome, I call it.
 * Users for whom their distaste for the "other" format is uppermost.

I'm keen to discuss this with those who are opposed. Tony  (talk)  11:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)