Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll

This poll deals with issues regarding date linking/unlinking and the use of autoformatting (software that automatically changes the date format displayed to logged-on editors' set preference). The poll runs from 00:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC) and concludes 23:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC).

The history of the dispute
After a long debate at MOSNUM talk and elsewhere, a poll and subsequent debate in August 2008 led to the deprecation (that is, the discontinuance) of date linking for autoformatting purposes. Several editors then moved forward with a large-scale manual, automated and semi-automated unlinking of dates. However, several editors indicated their opposition to this change, at WT:MOSNUM and the talk pages of the editors who were unlinking dates. Discussion continued at WT:MOSNUM on whether enough editors had previously provided input on the issue to accurately represent community consensus. Toward the end of November, two parallel RFCs regarding date linking/unlinking and autoformatting were launched, receiving input from hundreds of editors:


 * Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Three proposals for change to MOSNUM
 * Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC

Although these RFCs offered guidance on several points, there is disagreement as to whether that guidance has resolved all aspects of the debate. There have also been claims of an inherent bias in the wording and structure of the questions. This RfC seeks to clarify (i) whether a form of date autoformatting is desired, and (ii) whether the linking of date fragments should be used, and if so under which conditions.

=Poll= The poll will commence on 30 March 2009 and will run for two weeks. Users are encouraged to review the proposals and vote in all three sections: Autoformatting, Month-day linking, and Year linking. After the poll has closed, there will be a two-week period for discussion. A second poll in late April will then be considered—if necessary—to look at how the results of the first poll will be implemented. Whilst comments from individual parties are extremely welcome, any threaded discussion will be moved to the talk page.

Month-day linking
{{quotation|

Background statement
Month-day linking is the use of linking markup (double square brackets) on a day and month combination (e.g. March 24 ), which creates a link to a specific date article (March 24). Month-day linking has been used by editors to create links to such articles, and (from 2003 to 2008) to autoformat dates (see above).


 * Advantages of month-day linking
 * 1) Provides easy access to date articles.
 * 2) Populates "what links here" pages with possibly relevant data.
 * 3) Offers editors direct links to destination compared to the less precise "search" function.
 * 4) Uses a syntax that is logical, easily understood, and has been in widespread use since 2003 by the editing community.
 * 5) Provides links on occasions in which readers may reasonably wish to see the article on the date, including birth and death dates, dates of celebration (March 17 from Saint Patrick; 5 November from Guy Fawkes) or conventional names (e.g. 10 August 1792 links to 18 Brumaire).


 * Disadvantages of month-day linking
 * 1) Provides little or no relevance to an article's topic. These include, in almost all instances, links to:
 * 2) *birth and death dates;
 * 3) *dates of celebration (e.g. the list in March 17 is irrelevant to Saint Patrick/Saint Patrick's Day; the list in November 5 is irrelevant to Guy Fawkes).
 * 4) Dilutes high-value links (overlinking). When a link to a month-day page might be of potential interest to readers, it is better displayed in the See also section rather than in the main body of the article.
 * 5) Month-day linking does not provide an explanation as to why a reader should follow a link. The use of the See also section for such links can provide explanatory text.
 * 6) "What links here" for dates typically generates many results of questionable utility or relevance. There are already powerful tools for searching these items, including the precise "search" function and by adding "site:wikipedia.en" to a Google search for dates.


 * Advantages of month-day markup (whether or not it entails linking)
 * 1) Clearly marks out date strings for recognition by bots/scripts, which simplifies the automated processing of article text and the gathering of metadata.


 * Disadvantages of month-day markup
 * 1) Complicates the editing process with confusing syntax and additional keystrokes.
 * 2) Possible "metadata" add no value to those from existing tools, so it is unclear whether/why they warrant the use of special markup.


 * Advantages of removing guidance on month-day links
 * 1) Any specific guidelines on month-day links that do not apply to all links are instruction creep.


 * Disadvantages of removing guidance on month-day links
 * 1) The linking of date articles needs special guidance in our style guide because they are not like ‘normal’ articles—almost all date articles are lists of events, related only by the coincidence of occurring on the same date. Such lists almost never provide a context that helps in the understanding of an article that links to them, and therefore should not be linked to. If date articles are ever improved to the point where they do indeed provide historical context, this guidance may need to be reviewed.

If supported through consensus, one of the following four proposed guidelines (Options 1, 2, 3 or 4) would be added to Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and Linking. Please respond below to the four options.

Month-day: Option #4 (removal of guidance)
}}

Year linking
{{quotation|

Background statement
Year linking is when a specific year is linked to in an article (1987), or a pipe link to a year article on a specific topic ( 1987 ).


 * Advantages of year linking
 * 1) Provides easy access to year articles.
 * 2) Populates "what links here" pages with possibly relevant data.
 * 3) Allows readers to browse freely through global historical context via year.


 * Disadvantages of year linking
 * 1) Rarely relevant or useful to achieving a greater understanding of an article's topic.
 * 2) "What links here" often generates many false positives and sources of questionable utility  or relevance; the search box can easily be used instead.
 * 3) If added indiscriminately, articles may become overlinked and high-value links would be diluted.


 * Advantages of year markup (whether or not it entails linking)
 * 1) Simplifies automated processing of article text (i.e. gathering metadata).


 * Disadvantages of year markup
 * 1) Complicates the editing process and contributes to instruction creep.
 * 2) There are already powerful tools for gathering "metadata", including the search box and by adding "site:wikipedia.en" to a google search for years.


 * Advantages of removing guidance on year links
 * 1) Year links do not differ significantly from other links; year articles should be treated like any other articles for this purpose. Any specific guidelines on year links that do not apply to all links are instruction creep.


 * Disadvantages of removing guidance on year links
 * 1) The linking of year articles needs special guidance because they are not like ‘normal’ articles—almost all year articles are lists of events, related only by the coincidence of occurring in the same year. Such lists almost never provide a context that helps in the understanding of an article that links to them, and therefore should not be linked to. If year articles are ever improved to the point where they do indeed provide historical context, this guidance may then need to be reviewed.

If supported through consensus, one of the following four proposed guidelines (Options 1, 2, 3 or 4) would be added to Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and Linking. Please respond below the four options.

Years: Option #4 (removal of guidance)
}}