Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Date Linking RFC

The use of date autoformatting presently available in Wikipedia is overloaded on the function of interwiki linking. [[May 1]], [[2000]] autoformats the date for registered users who have set a date preference, but it also (for all users) provides links to the pages May 1 and 2000. In addition to other problems with this approach to date autoformatting, this has led to issues with articles becoming overlinked. Discussion on the WP:MOSNUM page in August 2008 led to a decision to deprecate such links, meaning that their use is now discouraged. However, that consensus has since been disputed. This RFC aims to settle that dispute as well as answer additional questions relating to dates and auto formatting.

This RFC seeks input about how editors and readers of Wikipedia expect dates within articles to be handled, including if they should be autoformatted and when dates should be linked. Understanding Wikipedians' views on these issues will help to resolve current disagreements about how to handle date links.

Deprecating the current date autoformatting

Do you support or oppose retaining the following statement?

• Dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting (even though in the past this was considered desirable).

Background: The date autoformatting function as currently implemented only works for registered users of Wikipedia who have set a date format preference. Users who are not logged in or who have not set a preference see whatever date formats have been used by the editors of the articles; if multiple editors have used multiple date formats on the same page, users who aren't logged in see many different date styles, which can impact readability. Furthermore, the current date autoformatting system can lead to overlinking, especially in date-heavy articles; this may reduce the value of other links. For these and other more technical reasons (several of which have been outlined by Tony1), date autoformatting links has been deprecated (i.e. their use has been discouraged) at WP:MOSNUM since August 2008. However, recent discussion has led to a dispute if there is truly widespread support for deprecating these links, and the RFC seeks to establish if this is the case or not.
Note: Mediawiki's software developers have identified potential ways to correct problems with the current method of date autoformatting, but it is not known whether or when these corrections might be implemented. (For more information on this, please see the discussion on Bugzilla.)

Is some method of date autoformatting desirable?

Do you agree with the following statement:

• The ability for the Mediawiki to convert dates into a form either appropriate for the page, or to user-defined preferences, is desirable, and the MediaWiki developers should be encouraged to find a solution that works without the problems of the current date autoformatting system.

Background: The current date autoformatting system has several drawbacks including producing many date links and providing inconsistent date formats to users who are not logged in. Currently the MediaWiki developers are discussing methods of improving autoformatting to address these points, including possibly correcting the problems in the current system. To make sure their time is being used effectively, it is necessary to understand if a date autoformatting approach that works correctly is desired on Wikipedia. If not, the developers should be informed of this so they may focus on other aspects of the software that need improving.

When to link to Month-Day articles?

Background: Month-day articles, such as May 1, contain assorted information about events on that day throughout recorded history. Some editors feel that links to these articles are justified because the information in them can be interesting; others feel such links are not usually relevant or useful to readers (a further analysis of this position has been provided by Greg L). Month-Day links can be generated without invoking date autoformatting, so this is a separate issue from date autoformatting. It should also be noted that per the current style guidelines for linking, normally an article should link to a date – if at all – only the first time the date appears in the article.

The question posed here is: When should Month-day links be made in articles? Please indicate which approach you prefer below. If you support "In certain cases", please explain what cases would be appropriate for these links.

When to link Year articles

Background: Year articles such as 2000 are similar to Month-Day articles, and in the same vein, can be seen either as very useful or very unhelpful. As with Month-Day articles, it is understood that normally they should only be linked – if at all – the first time each year appears in the article.

The question posed here is: When should Year links be made from articles? Please indicate which approach you prefer below. If you support "In certain cases", please explain what cases would be appropriate for these links.

How and when to use "Year in Field" links

"Year in Field" links (such as 2000 in sports or 2004 in politics) can provide better contextual information than linking directly to a year page. However, how these should be linked is under discussion; certain methods may hide the context of the links, or may cause too many such year links to be present.

How to use "Year in Field" links

There are four known options for "Year in Field" links, though other approaches may exist. The question here is Which style of "Year in Field" links should be used in the prose of articles to provide context? Please indicate which approach you support below; you may indicate support for multiple options, adding what you believe are specific cases where one format should be used over another.

Please note that this is only about years used as part of the normal prose for an article; the style guide for linking permits the most compact form necessary in tabular information in tables, lists, and infoboxes.

Hidden links

Hidden links are written as [[2000 in sports|2000]] and would appear in context as "A. Rookie started his professional career in 2000."

Inline links

Inline links use additional text in the link statement to provide sufficient context for what the user can expect to arrive when clicking the link. Example: "A. Rookie started his professional career in 2000." (the link generated by [[2000 in sports|career in 2000]])

Context links

Context links appear after the date enclosed in parenthesis. Example: "A. Rookie started his professional career in 2000. (other sporting events in 2000)" (the link generated by [[2000 in sports|other sporting events in 2000]])

"See Also" links

Instead of placing the links to such articles in the body of the text, they can be moved to the "See Also" section of an article, where articles of related context can be found.

When to use "Year in Field" links

As with Month-Day and Year links, there is a question of when such "Year in Field" links should be used, and can be seen as both helpful and unnecessary.

The question posed here is: When should Year-in-Field links be made from articles? Please indicate which approach you prefer below. If you support "In certain cases", please explain what cases would be appropriate for these links.