Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 44

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Note: This extended discussion on the linking of dates, during March and April 2006, is 171 kilobytes long. It therefore occupies archives 42 through 46.

previous page: /archive43 < (long discussion)
archive44
> next page: /archive45

A reworked version of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Avoid overlinking dates

The proposals

As a side note, there was a proposal above to move the Avoid overlinking dates under the Usage of links for date preferences section.

The rest of this section regards text proposals:

P0 - Keep as is 
If the date does not contain a day and a month, date preferences will not work, and square brackets will not respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it. This is an important point: simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so. See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context for the reasons that it's usually undesirable to insert low-value chronological links; see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links.
P1 - SlimVirgin's proposal (keeps the previous and adds a paragraph) 
If the date does not contain a day and a month, date preferences will not work, and square brackets will not respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it. This is an important point: simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so. See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context for the reasons that it's usually undesirable to insert low-value chronological links; see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links.
While editing articles, editors are encouraged to remove links that do not conform with the guidance on this page. However, as with all style issues, going through the encyclopedia with the sole purpose of changing from one style to another is discouraged (whether it involves date delinking, changing British to American English, or BCE to BC), because those who oppose the style change will see your actions as provocative. Remember that the MoS is a guideline, not policy, although editors are strongly encouraged to adhere to the advice in the MoS in the interests of harmonious editing and consistency across pages.
P2 - Francis' new proposal (see above for prior proposals) see P7 below for newest proposal 
If the date does not contain a day and a month, date preferences will not work, and square brackets will not respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. There is however no consensus among wikipedians whether, as a result of that, overlinking of separate years (or months, days) should be discouraged stronger than any other type of overlinking.
It is a requirement that links help readers understand a topic. The removal of links that don't can only be encouraged. But as the relevance of a link is a matter of personal appreciation (and hence, of consensus among wikipedians), the serialised de-linking, e.g. by bot or semi-bot, of all dates that don't respond to user preferences settings is discouraged.
Example: when, in article text, trying to distinguish Lucius Aemilius Paullus from other ancient Romans with the same name, wikipedians have editorial freedom whether they write (among other possibilities depending on context):
  • ... Aemilius Paulus, consul AD 1, ... or,
  • ... Aemilius Paulus, consul 1 CE, ... or,
  • ... Aemilius Paulus, consul in 1, ... (in this case the link makes clear "1" refers to a year).
P3 - Bobblewik's #linking of dates proposal (P0 + one additional sentence) 
If the date does not contain a day and a month, date preferences will not work, and square brackets will not respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it. This is an important point: simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so. See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context for the reasons that it's usually undesirable to insert low-value chronological links; see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links. Editors are encouraged to remove links that do not conform with the guidance on this page.
P4 - Neier's variant of Bobblewik's proposal (asking for clear "edit summary" notification) 
If the date does not contain a day and a month, date preferences will not work, and square brackets will not respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it. This is an important point: simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so. See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context for the reasons that it's usually undesirable to insert low-value chronological links; see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links.
Existing date links which do not conform to these standards, and which obviously do not contribute to the overall understanding or context of the article, can be deleted. When making edits of this sort, be sure to state so in the edit summary, so that problems can be quickly resolved.
P5 - Other reworking of Bobblewik's proposal (I suppose by KillerChihuahua - please correct if this attribution is faulty)
If the date does not contain a day and a month, date preferences will not work, and square brackets will not respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it. This is an important point: simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so. See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context for the reasons that it's usually undesirable to insert low-value chronological links; see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links.
Editors may remove links that do not conform with the guidance on this page. When making edits of this sort, be sure to state so in the edit summary, so that problems can be quickly resolved.
P6 - Gflores' proposal (encouraged, edit summary, no bots) 
If the date does not contain a day and a month, date preferences will not work, and square brackets will not respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it. This is an important point: simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so. See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context for the reasons that it's usually undesirable to insert low-value chronological links; see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links.
Editors are encouraged to remove links that do not conform with the guidance on this page. When making edits of this sort, be sure to state so in the edit summary, so that problems can be quickly resolved. However, going through the encyclopedia with a bot with the sole purpose of delinking is prohibited.
P7 - Francis' new proposal (reworking of P2) 
If the date does not contain a day and a month, date preferences will not work, and, with the present version of the MediaWiki software, square brackets will not respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. There is however no consensus whether overlinking of separate years (or months, days) should be discouraged on a different basis than any other type of overlinking.
In general it is a requirement that links help readers understand a topic. However, the relevance of a link is a matter of personal appreciation and hence of consensus among wikipedians. There is no requirement to de-link all dates that don't respond to user preferences settings.
Example: when, in article text, trying to distinguish Lucius Aemilius Paullus from other ancient Romans with the same name, wikipedians have editorial freedom whether they write (among other possibilities depending on context):
  • ... Aemilius Paulus, consul AD 1, ... or,
  • ... Aemilius Paulus, consul 1 CE, ... or,
  • ... Aemilius Paulus, consul in 1, ... (in this case the link makes clear "1" refers to a year).
P8 - Francis' new proposal (trying to take account of some of Talrias' remarks) 
There is no consensus whether the general principles of Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context apply for dates. However,
  • it is good practice to link all dates that respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences;
  • it is good practice to link separate months, days and years when relevant to context;
  • it is good practice that editors look for consensus on over/underlinking issues on a "by article" basis.
P8b - Francis' new proposal (Tony's suggestion - dab page specifics) 
There is no consensus whether the general principles of Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context apply for dates. However,
  • it is good practice to link all dates that respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences;
  • it is good practice to link separate months, days and years when relevant to context;
  • it is good practice not to link auxiliary dates on disambiguation pages, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Individual entries.
  • it is good practice that editors look for consensus on over/underlinking issues on a by article basis.
P8c - Francis' new proposal (no consensus on linking all full dates either) 
There is no consensus whether the general principles of Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context apply for dates. However,
P8d - Francis' new proposal (more balance according to Stephen Turner's suggestion) 
The general principle of Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context doesn't always apply for dates. These are some recommendations for when to link dates:
P9 - (add other proposals if you feel like) 
...

Comments on proposals

  • I prefer P2: P0 is the one that got us in trouble; P1 is only a partial remedy IMHO while more ambiguous than necessary, and P1, in general, is maybe a bit too long to be practical. I also support the rearranging of the order of the sections (i.e. put the "Avoid overlinking dates" section after the "Usage of links for date preferences" section) --Francis Schonken 11:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    ... added example to P2, so that it is no longer "shorter" than SlimVirgin's proposal. Nonetheless an instructive example can, IMHO, clarify more than theoretical elaborations. --Francis Schonken 13:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    Now added also P3-P4-P5 assembled from above, please correct if I didn't represent correctly. The reason I do this is that not all "support" voters in the vote above made clear which of these alternatives would be the preferred one in their view, neither whether they would think any of the other variants "acceptable". Needless to say, I suppose, that I think P3 to P5 would only acerbate the situation, not bringing it nearer to a solution. --Francis Schonken 16:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    As for P6 I think it has the same disadvantages as P1: first it is said that this is "important", then, in this case even without giving a reason, the means with which to proceed with the so-called "important" point are restricted. --Francis Schonken 09:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    And now I prefer P7 P8d (see below #P8d) --Francis Schonken 09:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • P0 only got us in trouble because a few editors chose to block and revert people for following the guideline as it is. I don't think P0 is the problem; I think the behaviour of certain admin is the problem here. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • While I applaud SlimVirgin's attempt at a compromise, I'm not a fan of P1, for reasons given above. And P2 might be appropriate in the future, but for now I don't think we should change the MoS to say that consensus does not exist, unless its clear that consensus does not exist. Right now it's clear that there are strong feelings both ways, but that doesn't mean there's no consensus. (Some people feel strongly that we should ignore copyright law, but consensus is clearly to follow it.) We're in the process now of determining whether there's consensus or not. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    *question* could you make clear which of the options (P0-P5) you prefer, or alternatively consider adding a "P6 → 9", wording your favourite? --Francis Schonken 16:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I support all of P3, P4, and P5. --Cyde Weys 18:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think P4 is the best. Not because of the request to include notification in the edit summary, but because it cautions (by implication) that some links do "contribute to the overall understanding or context of the article". I feel this strikes a good balance — most year links are not useful, but the editor who is considering removing them should remember that some may be. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think they all need to be reconsidered in the light of the date-pref bug being fixed as mentioned in the preamble. the following first sentence (in all of them) will become irrelevant. --Quiddity 20:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    If the date does not contain a day and a month, date preferences will not work, and square brackets will not respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences.
    It's not really a bug, it's a feature request. And there's no telling how long it's going to take to get done - it's been many months since it was first proposed and there's no sign of progress. So we need a solution that works in the interim. --Cyde Weys 20:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • P4 weak support. best so far. P2 makes sense, but reads like an ArbCom ruling. I do agree that an example helps clarify the abstraction; an example should be included with any final guideline implementation we decide on. --Quiddity 20:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I supported P4 in the past, and that still seems to be the best version IMO. You can also see back at the original conversation that I suggested a combination between P4 and P1, but I don't think it's different enough to be added as P7. If someone else disagrees, feel free to add it. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I support P4, P5, or P6. probably leaning towards six since it is more explicit and will help future editors who are no aware of this discussion. David D. (Talk) 21:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • P1 or P2. Both go by established practice and yet also try to address the concerns of raised here by David, Cyde and such. Ambi 22:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • P3 - supported Bobblewiks original of Mar 9 and still do. Requiring the mention of delinking in an edit summary is kinda silly, if that's all that was done then yes and mark as a minor edit. However when done in conjunction with other non-minor edits, there should be no need to note it. Wiki is evolving - change with it, don't insist on some archaic 3 year old agreement. Vsmith 00:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • P3 - I'm tempted to join Bobblewik, but will wait out this discussion. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 00:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support P4 or P1, with weak support for P6. I still think that the main contention is with edits being made without regard to the content. All three of these proposals address that. Oppose P5 and P3, since neither take that into account. Ambivalent towards P2, since it has the merits as P1, but also contains some unnecessary prioritization (more than any other type of linking )Neier 02:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • P1 seems to pretty clearly articulate my thoughts. P2 is a second choice, though I find it to be somwhat too techincal in tone. olderwiser 03:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • P3 is fine, but failing that, P5, which seems to be just a better wording of P4. In any case, "may" would be a better wording than "can". Tony 05:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think Francis' wording is the best available, but I think this voting which we are doing here is premature and if someone proposes a new wording, due to the amount of comments already in place it won't be given proper consideration, even if it is the most eloquent and agreeable prose in the world. Talrias (t | e | c) 06:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    Whether this is a "voting" I don't know. But the comments help me to try out improved versions, I've now added P7. Feel free to try out what you think best, I feel free to change my preferences as long as new versions are proposed. --Francis Schonken 09:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    I think your new P7 wording uses negative phrasing which could be misconstrued if the person reading it is not careful: "There is however no consensus [...] should be discouraged [...]". I think it should be changed into a more positive phrasing, such as "Dates should be linked in accordance with the guidelines at WP:CONTEXT". Talrias (t | e | c) 11:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    Tx for the suggestions, I tried P8 now:
    • shorter again, doesn't need an example;
    • apart from the "no consensus" (negative but true for what I've picked up from the discussion pages), only positive recommendations are given.
    If you like to try a version that fixes according to WP:CONTEXT, please proceed: I might get convinced. --Francis Schonken 14:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • P5 has the cleanest wording of the trio P4, P5, and P6, though I could live with any of the three, as well as with "'P1. Sunray 22:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding P8: I think that the wording of the second point is too positive, or might be carelessly read that way (starting with: "it is good practice to link separate months, days and years ..." Tony 13:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
This would be a good solution, and I'm fine with Tony's suggested modifications as well. Ambi 01:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Added P8b now, adding some emphasis to the "separate months, days and years" recommendation. I don't want to overdo this, well AGF (wikipedians can quote a 15 word sentence without truncating it); don't think wikipedians are clueless morons (they can understand a 15 word sentence without needing "special assistance"), and WP:BEANS (I don't feel like adding a message in the sense of "don't quote this sentence stopping at the word years"...)
I also added a dab page recommendation inferred from the MoS: well that might be a fine bot job: when disambiguating persons on a dab page, there is a recommendation to add "(<birth year> hyphen or dash <year of death>)" or, for living persons, "(b. or born <birth year>)" - some wikipedians have the bad habit of linking these dates on the dab page, contrary to the recommendation to link only the terms under disambiguation. Also on these dab pages some people add month and day of birth/death, while the recommendation is to only include years. --Francis Schonken 07:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Added P8c, see #Examples of when to link and not link solitary links below

  • I find these proposals confusing overall - most seem to be implying that linking dates is good for allowing date preferences to work, and then also suggesting that irrelevant linking is not good. So I don't know what is intended by these proposals. Maybe I'm sleep-deprived...? My comments:
    • Excess linking is distracting. Relevant links (esp. piped links to articles about specific events) are an exception.
    • It's not ideal if dates are not written in a consistent way, but it's not a huge problem, is it? If one article refers to May 17, and another to 4 April, I wouldn't expect readers to have trouble understanding exactly what is meant.
    • If it is agreed that linking dates is discouraged, then removing en masse should be acceptable (but with due care - can a bot propose changes which are then approved by the operator?)
    • If this causes discord, then let's ask for patience from whichever side isn't happy with the result, and keep thinking about alternatives. (If the decision is to wikilink all dates, I'll disagree, but I won't get my knickers in a twist... even assuming I wear knickers.)
    • Is it possible to develop an alternative form of code for dates, that shows dates according to the user's preference, and yet does not create a link? --Singkong2005 04:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Added P8d (see also #P8d below) --Francis Schonken 09:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Ambi's reverts

Ambi has reverted all of my changes en masse, in order to add links back to solitary years and months. An example is here, when she re-added over 200 links to solitary years, most of them duplicates, and none of them particularly relevant to the article. There are many more examples; just look through her recent contributions.

I think this was highly inappropriate. First off, the revert button is only supposed to be used in cases of vandalism, which, well, I'm offended at the suggestion. Secondly, I think my versions were clearly better, as one can see in the link diffs above. Thirdly, how can such a move not be seen as provocative? I'm pretty peeved about this. Comments would be welcome. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It was just as innapproriate as your actions, so I think it's all square. I'm pretty peeved about your actions, as well. Noisy | Talk 13:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't revert anyone. I didn't use admin powers. I changed articles in accordance with the MoS, not contrary to it. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, don't be obtuse. You and I both know exactly what you did - you carried out edits in line with a newly-noticed potential addition to policy that has drawn a great deal of concern and criticism, and, most importantly, is still under active consideration by the community. If you are not prepared to accept the processes that we use on Wikipedia to deal with pan-article editing matters, well, you're welcome to fork; if you don't want to do this, play nicely, instead.
James F. (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
You know it's a contentious issue, and yet you went ahead and steamrollered through a large number of articles. It's not a question of what's right or wrong, it's whether it's inflammatory or not. Noisy | Talk 14:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I've pointed out before that Ambi has become a serial pest in this respect. It's more than irritating; it's ending up being downright destructive - some kind of fetish on her part. Tony 14:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Ambi has simply reverted edits made en masse by people fully aware about the contention surrounding this issue. The disruption is from people who are ignoring the lack of agreement for their "enforcement" and going ahead to make as many edits as they can in spite of the disagreement. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Why do Ambi's actions not run afoul of WP:POINT? What policy supports using a tool intended SOLELY to combat vandalism for this purpose? olderwiser 15:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
... why on Earth would they? She's not the one taking action contrary to considered consensus; she's merely reverting people who are prejudicing current discussion. There's nothing at all to do with deliberate disruption in her actions, and certainly nothing with malicious intent. Beware of trying to sling mud with accusations of Bad Faith; it is rare that the mud sticks to your target, and common to be subsumed oneself.
James F. (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
action contrary to considered consensus -- really? So you're saying that there was a clear consensus against what Quadell was doing? Something so serious, so urgent that necessitated using a tool designed for combatting vandalism? That seems a rather disturbing reinterpretation of what constitutes acceptable behavior towards editors who are otherwise valued contributors. olderwiser 15:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I distinct remember discussion leading to consensus some 3 years ago or so that the don't-link-to-the-same-article-twice is waived for years, as part of an overall consensus and generally-held concept that dates and year references generally would always be linked. That is the considered consensus (that is, where we definitely were all agreeing in the past); the proposed changes are very recent, under active discussion, and have not been wholly laudatorily recived, to put it midly, are not at a state where consensus can be gauged, yet, and certainly aren't anything like considered consensus.
The Committee has always considered (and no doubt will continue to consider) actions in contravention of agreed policy to be rather different from perhaps ill-advised reverts of such actions; the former is positive action away from definite consensus, the latter, well, sometimes ham-fisted attempts to restore things to such a state.
Also, "valued contributors" is not a life title; it can be easily lost (and has been; I think of Wik, especially, when considering this thought); if some labelled thusly is engaging in tit-for-tat arguments, it may no-longer be an appropriate appellation. Just a side-thought, obviously - not particularly relevant here.
James F. (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Tony Sideway commented recently on Bugzilla that this was once the case. And indeed that that was the reason that the date preferences operated by linking mechanism. Furthermore I indistinctly remember this being the case. However it is not anymore, and the appropriate Buigzilla bug will hopefully obviate a lot of the argy bargy over this issue. Rich Farmbrough 19:50 26 March 2006 (UTC).
Hang on, James. There's a clear consensus again linking to stand-alone years, which is shown inter alia by the fact that the advice not to link has been in the MoS for a year. I don't recall any consensus to keep on linking the same years in sentence after sentence within the same article; please supply diffs if I'm wrong about that. As for who is editing in accordance with the guidelines, it's Quadell who is editing in accordance with the MoS and WP:DATE. And as for your "valued contributor" point, everyone involved in this is a valuable contributor, which is (in part) why there must be no more blocks or threat of blocks. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh please, SlimVirgin, don't go in oracle mode over this. Sysops are wheel-warring over this, stating a consensus that is not doesn't help. Even Jimbo got involved, addressing Bobblewik two weeks ago: "please do not run this bot again. If you do, I can assure you that Talrias's block will stick." [1] Above I also did some serious refutation of most of your other points, and some of what you say in the previous paragraph is obviously trash (nobody *ever* *ever* said they want "linking the same years in sentence after sentence within the same article" - the current version of the MoS simply doesn't protect against removing year links randomly, and that's no good). --Francis Schonken 19:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what James seemed to be saying, Francis: "I distinct remember discussion leading to consensus some 3 years ago or so that the don't-link-to-the-same-article-twice is waived for years, as part of an overall consensus and generally-held concept that dates and year references generally would always be linked. That is the considered consensus ..." This seems to say you should (or may) link 1981, not only on first reference, but every time it's mentioned, which would lead to a mass of blue on some pages. As for Bobblewik's use of a bot, that's a separate issue from whether there's consensus not to link stand-alone years. From my perspective, that consensus does exist, which doesn't mean some people aren't strongly opposed to it. (And I'm not sure what "oracle mode" is.) SlimVirgin (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
"Oracle mode?" Sounds rather sage to me :-) Sunray 20:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Francis, the reverts being made by Ambi are not edits that bobblewick or others have made using a bot. Why does everyone keep saying this? There is no doubt there was a bot but that has not run for a while, unless I am mistaken. If Ambi is reverting perfectly reasonable edits that conform to a middle ground position of "do not overlink dates" then i can only asume that Ambi DOES believe that: "linking the same years in sentence after sentence within the same article". And if Ambi does not think this, then she needs to start thinking about the edits before using rollback. I have noted that in some instances she has rolled back other edits that were nothing to do with delinking dates (i.e. unit edits that booblewick made during the sme edit). This just looks vindictive from an outsiders point of view. And if Ambi cares about this so much maybe she should get involved int he discussion too? David D. (Talk) 00:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I just noticed that Vsmith (talk · contribs) just reverted a number of Ambi's reversions of Quadell. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I've left him a quick note on his talk page. Hopefully he will consider being more, err, considerate in future. Wiki-love and all that.
James F. (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for the quick note - looks more like a rather heavy handed threat to me. Seems one could almost interpret the massive revert job by Ambi against a user who was following guidelines as rather a problem, I see no warning by James there. Yes, I did revert a few (3 or 4, I think) that showed up on my watchlist. And yes it was probably improper use of the rollback button - my apologies for that - but, again what I reverted was also improper use.
Now, let's move on. To me the overlinking of dates without reason is absurd and during my routine edits of pages I remove them, do I get blocked for that? Vsmith 20:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
We should bear in mind that the guideline currently in place says: "Avoid overlinking of dates." Quadell's changes are consistent with that. Sunray 16:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
That guideline is the section in contention. Please read the rest of this page, specifically this section and my comments in the date links section. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I've read it. As to your comments, you said: "I don't think this issue should be presented as an "all dates linked" vs. "no dates linked" issue, which is what some are seeking to present it as. There is clearly a midpoint between the two we can reach." That seems consistent with the current guideline and I agree with it. Sunray 20:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
"avoid overlinking" is not the same as "delink as a bot", don't you think? And anyway is just a guidelie, not an official policy. --tasc 17:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
"guidelie"! Brilliant! Noisy | Talk 17:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
well, it was just a typo, but a good one. :) --tasc 18:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The second-level header "Ambi's reverts" continues in archive45.


discussion continued from /archive43 < (long discussion)
archive44
> discussion continues in /archive45