Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive D5

Default date display setting
Perhaps MediaWiki should convert all supported date formats (e.g., May 28 2007, 28 May 2007, 2007-05-28 ) to the default (e.g., "May 28, 2007") for new and unregistered users rather than leaving it in whichever date format was used to link it? I find it more convenient to use the ISO date format than the more verbose form, and since it is automatically converted to the user's date format preference, I figured it would be OK to do that. However, if new and unregistered users will be seeing them as YYYY-MM-DD rather than Month DD, YYYY, that's not good. :/ -Matt 16:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Matt: I took the liberty of reformatting your comment because it didn't come out right if date preferences were set!


 * I agree with your point of view. I wish the MediaWiki software did that. I too used to write yyyy-mm-dd, assuming that the software would convert it. However, you'll have to lobby the developers for that change, and in general I'm afraid they seem to have little time, and we seem to have little influence. All we can do on this page is give style advice given the current state of the software.


 * Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * One problem, of course, would be what to set the default as. Should it be Month DD, YYYY or should it be DD Month YYYY (or even YYYY-MM-DD).  Would we ever get consensus there?  But, then, on the  other hand, should there be a default?  Isn't it better to treat this like spelling with consistency within articles but not necessarily across them - leaving the format seen by the unsigned in whichever had been written in the article?  Jɪmp 02:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Date formats should be treated like regional spelling. Color and colour, April 4 and 4 April. According to the nature of the article. If we were to settle on one date format or another as a universal default, then we would get howls of outrage from the other side, as well as the recognition of a precedent and license to convert colour to color, feet to metres and so on throughout the wikipedia. This is a can of worms we don't want to open! --Pete 03:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I see Jim and Pete's argument. Myself, I still think either default would be better than none, although you've made me less sure than I was. But it's really a moot point: I don't think the developers are likely to regard this feature as a priority even if we agreed we wanted it, and certainly not if we don't agree. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Really we should be smarter on the preferences, and if not set we could deduce the location, and so have simple localization prefs.... But I didn't want to push for too much. And I'm not sure what's happened to Rob Church's patch anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 11:59 2 June 2007 (GMT).

Just following the rules, folks
The stuff I've delinked has been among the categories that wikipedia's rules of style says should be delinked, such as days of the month or things that have been linked more than once. Treybien 1:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Piped 'Year in xxx' links
 Discussion brought from talk:WikiProject Films (starts here)

In a film article, I want to know the proper format for using the 'Year in Film' link. When I create a film article, I write it in the following manner which just shows the year and if you click on the year it takes you to the Year in Film page for that year:
 * Movie Title is a 2006 film starring John Smith and Peggy Sue.

However, some of my films have been edited by others changing the year link to just the year and then adding a {see 2006 in film) to the end:
 * Movie Title is a 2006 film starring John Smith and Peggy Sue (see 2006 in film).

I would like to get a ruling as to which is the proper format. I think the way I do it is, as it is cleaner and there is less "clutter" in the article, but if the other method is correct I will start using it. Thanks! Donaldd23 23:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have edited hundreds of introductory sentences for films, and I tend to follow the first approach that you listed, since that was what I saw as most common for other films. I just think having a "see 2006 in film" detracts from the introductory paragraph when it can just be included within a wikilink. Also, the title of the film should have both italics and bold around it such as Movie Title to also remain uniform with the thousands of other films on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work with your film contributions. --Nehrams2020 23:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nehrams. Cbrown1023 23:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the list by year point of view is that it offers the possibility to place this film in relation with other films of the same year or period. So, if there is a place in the article where this link can be given, the code is 1968, which gives 1968. Hoverfish 23:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also I personally don't like to come in articles where everything is linked to something. I could ignore the link, but it gets the eye for sure. Hoverfish 23:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that WikiProject Music specifically deprecates the use of "piped links" of that form. That is, you should only link to 1968 in film without any piping whatsoever. This is compliant with the WP:MOS guidelines about linking text. --Dhartung | Talk 18:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no "proper format". There's no clear WP-wide consensus on this (see Manual of Style (dates and numbers)), so policy for film pages is pretty much whatever we say it is.... and fortunately, we do seem to agree on this.
 * I'm not too keen on the counter-intuitive 2006 links, but I strongly dislike the "see 2006 in film" approach, which clutters the text, and I see no value in a link to just the year. One possibility would be not to include a link to the year at all, except that somebody would probably add one.
 * TheMadBaron 17:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The format preferred by WikiProject Music (at WP:MUSTARD), which is probably influencing the use of the "year in X" form, is instead:
 * Album is a 2006 record by John Smith and Peggy Sue (see 2006 in music).
 * First of all, the manual of style deprecates standalone years except where they are particularly significant, so those may be removed from any article as you edit (I wouldn't bother unless making other changes as well). Second, the idea is that with music articles, having bunches and bunches of year links right next to each other is clutter and only the most significant dates should be linked, for example, if the item itself is placed on the "year in music" page. This is so you don't get an article full of "In 2006, Britney Clarkson released her 203rd album, I'm Boring (see 2006 in music), which contained the singles "So Are You" (see 2006 in music) and "I Forgot Your Mom" (see 2006 in music). I don't know that this concern applies to film articles. In any case, mentioning it once in the lead doesn't bother me in the least, especially if the movie article is already included in the year in film article linked.
 * I'm not saying we must be compliant with the other WikiProject, but I would prefer that the two projects not have completely opposite standards. --Dhartung | Talk 18:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there a good reason why you delink piped links to years in (some topic)? You apparently decided here that 1982 in film is a bad page to link to from Blade Runner. It does seem a decent link, though; perhaps you should cite something other than WP:CONTEXT if you want to remove links like this one. Kusma (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes there is a good reason. Hiding links behind routine terms does not help the reader at all. I do not think anyone believes that readers hover over or click all mundane year links to reveal what is hidden. As far as the reader is concerned, it is just another out of context link to a year.
 * That is why the people over at the music project say:
 * Do not use piped links to "years in music" e.g. , instead add (see 1991 in music) where you feel it is appropriate.
 * That suggestion makes sense more generally than just for music. Perhaps it would be worth raising it in the film project.
 * I hope that explains it. Lightmouse 13:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I revived this discussion from the archive because of a conversation that Kusma and I were having. Is it time for a policy on this? Lightmouse 19:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I will still continue with 2006 . It's not about hiding links or out of context links, it's about linking to the right page. Linking to the general year page like 2006 in the film article is definitely an out of context link.-- Crzycheetah 02:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think in most cases it's better not to link to year pages at all. Jogers (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I always use that method, it is cleaner and less cluttered - • The Giant Puffin •  10:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion brought from talk:WikiProject Films (ends here)

There are lots of piped year links on Wikipedia. What do people think about generalising the policy being used at the music project? Lightmouse 11:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There was a time when I used piped year links, but now I strongly dislike them, for two reasons: (1) no-one will ever follow the link, because they think it's just another useless year link; (2) even if they do follow the link, it won't take them where they expect: it's bad if links have a surprising destination. So I would be happy for us to advise against them. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Like Stephen I think piped year links are bad, and even question the value of many links to "X in Y" articles, because they are still very general listy articles. A see also link to "1980's punk scene in New York"  where there was some description of how the scene developed, might give useful context to an article, but "1984 in music" or even "1984 in American Music" will give little context, especially if the articles are listy. In summary, I support generalising the music project policy. Rich Farmbrough, 09:10 2 June 2007 (GMT).


 * Would anyone like to add the appropriate wording? Lightmouse 09:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree & feel you should do more to encourage comment from others before making a blanket policy. If the complaint is about linking to "listy" articles, then the complaint is about those articles really, not about the links. Personally, I find links to years (e.g. 1946 to be helpful, and more so where they are piped to a specific area (e.g. 1946 in architecture). I note that Lightmouse has been busy deleting single-year links from a wide array of articles, but like other visitors to Lightmouse's talk page I find this to be disruptive - the guideline as stated explicitly acknowledges that some editors like these links and I don't think it's appropriate to go through deleting them all in the absence of a clear policy against them. All that does is make more work for us poor editors either putting them back or amending them.
 * The (see 1946 in architecture) format is fine for an article which is dealing with only one event, person etc, but for an article surveying the historical development of something (e.g. reinforced concrete) it's far too awkward. -- Kvetner 11:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Kvetner: the discussion is not whether linking 1946 is helpful; or whether linking to 1946 in architecture is helpful; but whether it's a good idea to disguise a link to the latter to look like the former, for example: "After the destruction of the Second World War, many new buildings were designed in  Germany. In 1946, someone started construction of something". This is the sort of link that I think should be strongly discouraged. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I was addressing that point as well as introducing a new one, but in case that's confusing I'll separate them out. I will say again that I disagree with the proposal to change the style guidelines so that piped year links are deprecated. I think they are useful and for the reasons already discussed - links to the year pages only (1946) are less relevant than a link to a more specific page (1946) - while the (see 1946 in architecture) option remains clumsy for any article which discusses a variety of dates. Therefore the piped links remain a useful compromise between year links which are less relevant or which clutter up the text unnecessarily. I think they have sufficient value that there's no need for a blanket policy, although I have no problem with individual WikiProjects deciding on their own preference. -- Kvetner 20:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that example, where only the year is mentioned, IMO it should only be linked if the year is somehow relevant to the article (WP:CONTEXT). Another point worth mentioning:  Article content vs. infobox content, I have seen piped-context year links used in infoboxes as an alternative to including non-related year links solely for date-formatting preferences.  --Stratadrake 02:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's come up again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. I think I am also against having this on a project-by-project basis and I agree that piped links are to be avoided for lack of utility. --John 22:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

 Discussion brought from talk:WikiProject Aircraft (starts here) I just had an interesting conversation with User:Piotr Mikołajski about the use of links like 1933. I had delinked some and he undid my edit. I would submit that these easter eggs are of no value whatsoever and that it would be more useful to use links of the sort: See also 1933 in aviation, and only where the entry linked to contains some relevant information. I believe this is in line with the principle Only make links that are relevant to the context. What do other editors think? --John 21:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Easter egg links like that are really of little value.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree - the links take you to the year in aviation page which allows the reader to put the particular event in context of other aviation events. MilborneOne 21:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But the reader doesn't know unless he/she hovers over the link where it will lead! I bet over 99% of the time a reader would assume the link would lead only to the standard xxxx year article. Surely using them judiciously and making them clear would be better. --John 21:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a link in the related content section of the standard specs box would work. On other articles, a link in the See also section would work.  If we are going to create a 19xx year in yyyyyy, then what is the point of having year links themselves?  I have done alot of work on this project and have always linked to the years because we need to remeber, that overall, this project is part of the greater wiki community and there is often some merit in doing things the same way the rest of the community does. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * When you hover over the link it says 19XX in aviation so a reader would know were the link went. MilborneOne 21:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, yes. How many are going to do that though, especially when it is part of a full date (like January 1 1920)? --John 21:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect nobody really clicks through any normal date links as they do not add any real value! but another benefit of the aviation links is when you use what links here on the 19XX in aviation page. MilborneOne 21:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better to improve the XXXX in aviation page to mention the aircraft in question, which would achieve the same thing but actually be useful? --John 22:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In a perfect world, where we know the date of a first flight of an aircraft type, the year in aviation article should always link back to that type (year in aviation has a specific subsection for first flights), but I think most of us have been a bit slack in making sure that happens. So, in the context of the infoboxes, years should definitely link to the year in aviation article. In the context of general article prose, it probably doesn't matter whether a year is linked or not, but if it is linked, I think it should link to the year in aviation rather than to just the year, since this is the more specific context. If readers want a more general context again, each year in aviation article provides a prominent link to the more general year. It's only one more click. --Rlandmann 22:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the prevalence (and specific advice in the manual of style) that dates should be coded as 1 January 1920, I think very few users would expect anything other than the standard year article to link from 1920. On the other hand, if we could improve the xxxx in aviation articles, that would actually be useful. We could then avoid these Easter egg links and use See also xxxx in aviation  as a far more useful and encyclopedic way of highlighting these articles.--John 22:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry - could you please direct me to where the MOS says not to do this? I couldn't find it. --Rlandmann 22:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly, that would be at Manual of Style (dates and numbers). --John 22:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I couldn't see anything mentioning piped links of this sort. On the other hand, piping to years in aviation has been part of WP:AIR's page content guidelines since April 2004. --Rlandmann 22:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that that MoS page says "is considered a guideline". So it is not a hard rule.  -Fnlayson 22:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Noted, well spotted. In fact there are very few hard rules in Wikipedia. However my argument does not (and never did) depend on it being a hard rule, but on the utility or lack thereof which these links add to the project. It seems at least one major project already deprecates this confusing use of piped links. I think it would be unsatisfactory and inefficient if these decisions were to be made on a project basis, so I have raised it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Best wishes, --John 22:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion brought from talk:WikiProject Aircraft (ends here)

Deleting year links
I'm bringing out my other point separately, which is to ask for opinions on the practice of deleting year links indiscriminately across a wide range of articles despite their being no policy requirement for this and despite the guidelines explicitly acknowledging that many editors like such links. Any views? -- Kvetner 20:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In the past, this has resulted in some user blocks, and some rather nasty revert wars. I recommend reading through the archives of this talk page, and possibly User talk:Bobblewik and associated archives such as here or here before doing this. Neier 10:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Year ranges
Am I missing it, or is there nothing covering year ranges: a) 1352-3, b) 1352-53 c)1352-1353? All I can see is a link to the dash policy, which doesn't cover this question. An editor keeps changing b)s  to c)s - which other people change back.  b) should be standard, in my view. Johnbod 02:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think b)s are comprehensible enough. I'd support making them standard. a)s, of course, create consistancy problems when next to ranges spanning across decades (e.g. 1352-69).  The problem still exists with b)s when next to ranges across centuries but the problem would be less frequent in this case. Jɪmp 03:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
Does this section imply that dates that occur AD or CE should not be referred with AD or CE? I know I didn't express my question so I'll provide an example. Is 18th century preferred to 18th century AD/CE? I imagine the context may influence which one is better. If BC/BCE dates are frequenty mentioned then it may be better to add the AD/CEs in too. Am I correct? GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 23:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, there's no point in adding AD's all over Voltaire. In a sequential chronological History of metalworking or something, as a minimum you should probably start with a BC, have one or two for your last BC dates, & an AD for your first one or two of those. More may be necessary & all dates may need them if you are jumping around.  Or do more, like this list Timeline of clothing and textiles technology Johnbod 23:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say only add AD or CE where not to do so would cause confusion or lead to unnatural prose. Of course, it is context dependant but in your example, I'd suggest that 18th century should be preferred to 18th century AD/CE. Given that BC/BCE dates are frequenty mentioned I don't see that it follows that it may be better to add the AD/CEs in too.  These are not symmetric in the mind's eye.  To crudely exemplify what I mean, consider 2007 BC & 2007 AD verses 2007 BC & 2007, surely you'd agree that the AD (or use CE if thou wilt) is unnecessary.  We don't put plus signs before all positive numerals. P.S. I'll be moving this into the appropriate section above. Jɪmp 00:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)