User:Tony1/Survey of attitudes to DA removal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The survey has been completed.

  • 100 featured articles notified 20–31 July 2008.
  • Registration was conducted from 10–12 August, two to three weeks after posting.
  • First date refers to the date of posting the notice at the talk page. Second date refers to the date of the (first) response by an article contributor.
  • Unless otherwise indicated in the Positive and Negative sections below, there was a single response.
  • "s" means that there was a subsequent section on the talk page at the time of returning to register the responses.
  • "r" means I have subsequently run the script on the article.

The first section below is a copy of the message that was posted.


Proposal to remove date-autoformatting[edit]

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting


  • (1) In-house only
  • (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
  • (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
  • (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.
  • (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
  • (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
  • (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
  • (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
  • (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
  • (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
  • (4) Typos and misunderstood coding
  • (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
  • (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
  • (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
  • (5) Edit-mode clutter
  • (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
  • (6) Limited application
  • (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
  • (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and I have no intention of arguing with people's feelings on the issue. Tony (talk)

19 positive responses[edit]

70 nil responses[edit]

7 negative response[edit]

4 others[edit]

  • 22 July, Talk:BAE Systems, 22—one OK, one equivocal; more input requested by me, but none there 10 Aug. r
  • 24 July, Talk:Macintosh, 24—didn't understand; explained; awaiting response
  • 24 July, Talk:Freedom Monument, 31—not negative, but unsure whether he values "preference" over the disadvantages in the capped text; explained; awaiting response
  • 30 July, Talk:Anschluss, 30—request for further information

Positive comments[edit]

I have not cut-and-pasted negative comments below; there are not nearly as many, and they are easily accessible on my talk page and archives, and those of MOSNUM; also see the "negative response" pages listed above in the survey.

From the survey above[edit]

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)

Tony1's talk page[edit]

  • 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)

MOSNUM talk (selection)[edit]

  • 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.... 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)
  • 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'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)

Negative responses are easily accessible.


Sandbox[edit]

I thank Philip Baird Shearer for drawing to our attention a prime example of why date autoformatting should be removed more generally. The diffs he has supplied above for Minor campaigns of 1815 show that User:Colonies Chris not only removed numerous low-value bright-blue dates that were diluting the useful links, but manually fixed spelling and MoS breaches, such as “March 15th, the wrong use of title case in a section heading, and the replacement of the curly glyphs with the MoS-recommended straight ones). Chris's attempts to audit and improve the article were no quick and dirty fix using a script: they appear to be script management at its best, with a significant element of skilled human oversight.

Let's compare the opening, and a subsequent phrase, of the original autoformatted version with the DA-free version that Chris produced. The article uses the international date format preferred by some Canadians, the US military, and most English-speakers in other countries. I've arranged it so the we all see what almost all of our readers have always seen: the raw date, but in linked blue.

Original

On 1 March 1815 Napoleon Bonaparte escaped from his imprisonment on the isle of Elba,... the destruction of the power of Napoleon Bonapart and the restoration of the Bourbon Dynasty under King Louis XVIII on 8 July 1815 ...

Chris’s DA-free version

On 1 March 1815 Napoleon Bonaparte escaped from his imprisonment on the isle of Elba,... the destruction of the power of Napoleon Bonapart and the restoration of the Bourbon Dynasty under King Louis XVIII on 8 July 1815 ...

By reverting back to the original, Philip has made the opening harder to read, removing the visual clarity of the critical high-value link to Napoleon by jamming it together with the date-link.

The article contains many high-value links, in which the advantages of avoiding dilution and colour distractions of low-value blue is manifest. Here's the original, as reverted to, with the DA-free version Chris produced below it. I've capped it to save space.

Example 1 comparison


Original

Marshal Suchet had received orders from Napoleon to commence operations on 14 June; and by rapid marches to secure the mountain passes in the Valais and in Savoy (then part of the Kingdom of Sardinia), and close them against the Austrians. On 15 June, his troops advanced at all points for the purpose of gaining the frontier from Montmeilian, as far as Geneva; which he invested. Thence he purposed to obtain possession of the important passes of Meillerie and St. Maurice; and in this way to check the advance of the Austrian columns from the Valais. At Meillerie the French were met and driven back by the advanced guard of the Austrian right column, on 21 June. By means of forced marches the whole of this column, which Baron Frimont himself accompanied, reached the Arve on 27 June.[1] The left column, under Count Bubna, crossed Mount Cenis on 24 June and 25 June. On 28 June, the column was sharply opposed by the French at Conflans; of which place, however, the Austrians succeeded in gaining possession.[2]
To secure the passage of the river Arve the advanced guard of the right column detached, on 27 June, to Bonneville, on its left; but the French, who had already fortified this place, maintained a stout resistance. In the mean time, however, the Austrians gained possession of the passage at Carrouge; by which means the French were placed under the necessity of evacuating Bonneville, and abandoning the valley of the Arve. The Austrian column now passed Geneva, and drove the French from the heights of Grand Saconex and from St. Genix. On 29 June, this part of the Austrian army moved towards the Jura; and, on 21 July, it ...

Chris's DA-free version

Marshal Suchet had received orders from Napoleon to commence operations on 14 June; and by rapid marches to secure the mountain passes in the Valais and in Savoy (then part of the Kingdom of Sardinia), and close them against the Austrians. On 15 June, his troops advanced at all points for the purpose of gaining the frontier from Montmeilian, as far as Geneva; which he invested. Thence he purposed to obtain possession of the important passes of Meillerie and St. Maurice; and in this way to check the advance of the Austrian columns from the Valais. At Meillerie the French were met and driven back by the advanced guard of the Austrian right column, on 21 June. By means of forced marches the whole of this column, which Baron Frimont himself accompanied, reached the Arve on 27 June.[1] The left column, under Count Bubna, crossed Mount Cenis on 24 and 25 June. On 28 June, the column was sharply opposed by the French at Conflans; of which place, however, the Austrians succeeded in gaining possession.[2]
To secure the passage of the river Arve the advanced guard of the right column detached, on 27 June, to Bonneville, on its left; but the French, who had already fortified this place, maintained a stout resistance. In the mean time, however, the Austrians gained possession of the passage at Carrouge; by which means the French were placed under the necessity of evacuating Bonneville, and abandoning the valley of the Arve. The Austrian column now passed Geneva, and drove the French from the heights of Grand Saconex and from St. Genix. On 29 June, this part of the Austrian army moved towards the Jura; and, on 1 July, it ...

Here's another random example from the article. Notice that the task of entering square brackets distracted an editor at some stage, resulting in a repetition that is still there in the article (green here):

Example 2 comparison


On 5 July the main body of the Bavarian Army reached Chalons; in the vicinity of which it remained during 6 June. On this day, its advanced posts communicated, by Epernay, with the Prussian Army. On 7 July Prince Wrede received intelligence of the Convention of Paris, and at the same time, directions to move towards the Loire. On 8 July Lieutenant General Czernitscheff fell in with the French between St. Prix and Montmirail; and drove him across the Morin, towards the Seine. Previously to the arrival of the IV (Bavarian) Corps at Château-Thierry; the French garrison had abandoned the place, leaving behind it several pieces of cannon, with ammunition. On 10 July of July, the Bavarian Army took up a position between the Seine and the Marne; and Prince Wrede's Headquarters were at La Ferté-sous-Jouarre.

On 5 July the main body of the Bavarian Army reached Chalons; in the vicinity of which it remained during 6 June. On this day, its advanced posts communicated, by Epernay, with the Prussian Army. On 7 July Prince Wrede received intelligence of the Convention of Paris, and at the same time, directions to move towards the Loire. On 8 July Lieutenant General Czernitscheff fell in with the French between St. Prix and Montmirail; and drove him across the Morin, towards the Seine. Previously to the arrival of the IV (Bavarian) Corps at Château-Thierry; the French garrison had abandoned the place, leaving behind it several pieces of cannon, with ammunition. On 10 July, the Bavarian Army took up a position between the Seine and the Marne; and Prince Wrede's Headquarters were at La Ferté-sous-Jouarre.


Now, I respect Philip as an editor: he makes a valuable contribution to the project, and I've seen his work at "Naming conventions" and "WikiProject MilHist". However, I'm disappointed to see what appear to be aggressive posts at Chris's talk page in which Philip threatens Chris with blocking over the matter. I trust that this could never be interpreted as an attempt to use administrator status to prosecute a political agenda. In particular, I'm concerned that Philip has erroneously cited MOSNUM's "prohibition on changing date formats" to support his threat. "Date formats" clearly refers to US vs. international date formats, not to whether autoformatting is used or not used. Please check the section for yourselves.

I want to persuade Philip that as an admin we look to him to provide a calm, equitable environment in which to conduct the business of the day; is it too much to hope that he might support the cause? Tony (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Siborne, pp. 775,776
  2. ^ a b Siborne, p. 776
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tony1/Survey_of_attitudes_to_DA_removal&oldid=1142143294"