Manual of Style

This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Archives

General 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, vote, 6, 7, 8, 9 (AD/CE), 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 14a, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 49a, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161 Binary prefixes B0, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10, B11, B12, B13, B14, B15, B16, B17 Years and dates D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, D12, D13, D14 See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Dates Wikipedia talk:Date debate Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (calendar dates) Wikipedia talk:Timeline standards Wikipedia:Measurements Debate Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date autoformatting Complete rewrite of Units of Measurements (June 2008) Dec. 2008 RfC on Date linking/autoformatting (three proposals) Dec. 2008 RfC on Date linking/autoformatting (detailed)

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

{{editprotected}} The numerically oriented birth and death templates eg: {{death date and age}} have a number of problems as discussed last month in MOSNUM discussions. Due to the needless complexity these older templates introduce, their error prone nature, their inflexibility with date display, as well as their inability to handle Julian dates, I suggest the following change to the guidance regarding their use. The new guidance steers contributors to the templates that accept plain text dates rather than the numeric dates:

In biographical infobox templates, provide age calculation with {{birth-date and age}} for living people and {{death-date and age}} for the deceased when the full birth or death date, respectively, is known. Death-date and age may be used for Julian dates, but both parameters must be in Julian. With Julian dates, if strict microformat emission is a concern, the gregorian parameter must be used to indicate what the Gregorian date would have been, had that calendar been in existence at the time. See {{death-date and age}} documentation for an example.

The current passage may be found in the birth and death dates section. Comments/ improvements? -J JMesserly (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the editprotected template since this received no comments today and the concensus opinion from the prior discussion almost universally supported the less complicated syntax of the new templates. -J JMesserly (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Aervanath (talk) 07:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the birth and death years should be linked for EVERY biography, as history is important and a person's life is lived in context. However, when it comes to articles on "oldest" or "last survivors," the year of birth becomes an imperative part of the story. That Henry Allingham was born in 1896 and is still living beggars the question: how has the world changed in 112+ years? Having a convenient link to the year 1896 makes sense in these cases. Therefore, an exception should be made even if a decision is made to not link birth and death dates. Ryoung122 10:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The year articles are too scattergun to be worth linking to. 1896 contains a random selection of items, few of which would have any relevance to Henry Allingham's life (to pick a couple: April 9 - The National Farm School (later Delaware Valley College) is chartered in Doylestown, PA.; October 5 - After a long siege, Brazilian government troops take Canudos in north Brazil, crushing Antonio Conselheiro and his followers). Much more focused and informative links would be History of English society or Economic history of Britain, or similar. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rational solution to this problem (if it is a problem) is to improve the year article. This is what we do for every other sort of article; we don't abstain from linking beause the present version of an article is controverted, erroneous, or even non-existent; indeed, we encourage making redlinks so that other editors will write the article.

As for the examples given, both are relevant at least as context; the change from Farm Schools to commmunity colleges is part of a change in the whole structure of education, parallel to the change from the council schools he did attend - to the High School at which he spoke recently; note that council schools are younger than he is, being established by the Education Act 1902. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 1896 article gives the reader no hint that the establishment of the school had anything to do with a structural change in education, it's just a bare fact with no context, like virtually every item in every year article. (And the farm school concerned is in Pennsylvania and HA is British, making it even less likely that it has any relevance to HA's experience of the changes in the world in his lifetime.) It's all very well to say 'we should improve the year article', but people have been saying that for a long time and it isn't happening (with a few rare exceptions). Colonies Chris (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• An ArbCom-sponsored RfC is coming that will definitively settle this. Greg L (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's being discussed here; if Greg wishes to propose that ArbCom set policy, he should do so there, and see what ArbCom says. Short of that, this RfC is likely to produce the same results as previous ones: Some people like date links, some like them in moderation, some hate them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• …if Greg wishes to propose that ArbCom set policy… I don’t; Locke Cole does. Guidelines won’t be settled by ArbCom, nor you, nor me. It will be established by community consensus, which is one of the guiding pillars of Wikipedia. And “community consensus” on Wikipedia is determined through RfCs. In this case, it will have to be an ArbCom-supervised RfC, since Locke et al. refused to accept the previous RfCs conducted here at MOSNUM. Greg L (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please stop speaking for me. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to disagree with Ryoung & Anderson here. Trivia about the particular year that a person happens to have been born in has little connexion to a serious biography. By all means link to the century/centuries he lived in but not a particular year. JIMp _talk·cont 18:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decade articles could also be a possibility.  HWV258  21:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All kinds of interesting things happened in 1896, such as the first modern Olympic Games, the 40-minute Anglo-Zanzibar War and a pivotal (realigning) U.S. Presidential Election. Whether they (or equally-important but completely-apolitical events) are properly featured is a matter of editing 1896. ¶ But that's really not the point, the editors working on Henry Allingham's article are those who should discuss and decide whether that particular article is interesting enough or relevant enough to their article to merit a link. Trying to establish a single policy in such matters for two million articles is far worse than madness. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article's editors can decide such issues, but just a reminder that if something such as 1896 is deemed important-enough to be referenced, it can also be added to the See Also section of the article.  HWV258  22:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting alternative. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And again, contrary to our general treatment of links, which puts something in See also only if it can't be worked into the main text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And the other good thing about the See Also section is that it can provide a brief descriptive assistance as to which points might be of interest on the destination page (amongst the multitude of superfluous points that will be encountered there). A simple date link can never provide that assistance.  HWV258  23:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SEEALSO seems to suggest using links in prose over using links in a "See Also" section. I'm failing to see how linking the year causes any problems that this resolves. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, it's an alternative that can be considered as the need arises. Numerous editors have pointed out the problem with a link that simply drops a reader at the start of a long list of nebulous facts. I've also just pointed out (but will do so again) that a See Also section can add a brief description—something a date link never can (as pointed out in WP:SEEALSO: Also provide a brief explanatory sentence when the relevance of the added links is not immediately apparent). Thanks for the link to WP:SEEALSO—I find the sentence These may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question illuminating. In any case, there's nothing at WP:SEEALSO that prevents date links being placed in a See Also section: whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense.

The more I think about it, the more I prefer date links to be moved to the See Also section. For example, in the Handel article, an entry in the See Also section could include the point: Note that Bach was also born in 1685. That provides a contextual reason (musicians having overlapping life spans) for clicking the link.

As to my belief that the three people who will ever read "1685" and be interested enough to find out what else happened in that year, can simply enter the four digits "1685" near the top left of any WP screen and click the "Search" button—don't get me started. :-)

 HWV258  00:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a footnote would do the trick better than either SeeAlso or a wikilink. (Since Handel ended up in England, maybe a footnote that says "1685 was also the year when J.S. Bach was born and Charles II died." Since Henry Allingham served in the very-young Royal Naval Air Service, his birth in the year of the last old-fashioned colonial takeover by RN gunboats might be noted to show a contrast or transition.) Just thinking out loud (to use a wikifigure of speech). —— Shakescene (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date links are a long standing convention on Wikipedia. They link to almanac-style articles with information on events that occur on the linked-to date/year. Not necessarily directly relevant except as a method of browsing other articles. I'm still unconvinced of the harm, and obviously most of Wikipedia is unconvinced as well, or else this convention would not have been maintained for nearly six years prior to this one-man crusade to abolish them. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"One-man"? I think we're getting closer to the nature of the "problem" here. I know it's probably too late for you to ever try to get out of the corner of the room you are in (you know, the one with all the wet paint around you), but to anyone else who may read this, please review the results of the various RfCs here and see if the epithet of "one-man" really applies (the 190 "oppose" votes to the first proposal mentioned on that page are an eye-opener). I'm also sad (again) to see that a whole heap of rationale (and well-meaning analysis above—from more than one editor) remains unaddressed, except to summarily dismiss everything with words such as "crusade". I suppose I'm nervous to ask, but whom is the "one-man"?  HWV258  03:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 (talk · contribs). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say this again, in case anyone reading this discussion hasn't heard it before. Dates were linked, not through careful consideration of their relevance, but en masse as a side-effect of autoformatting, which until last year was recommended by the MoS. The unintuitive nature of the autoformatting syntax ('day month' and 'year' have to be linked separately) misled many editors into believing that all years were supposed to be linked. Almost all of the year links we have throughout WP were made because editors thought that's what they were supposed to do. The proof of mass indifference to these links is to be seen in my evidence to the ArbCom case - thousands of articles delinked with scarcely a peep of objection.

An excellent example of the confusion among editors about date linking can be seen in an article that was linked from the main page only a couple of days ago: psychedelic frogfish. You'll see there that January and June are linked - pointlessly, even LC would agree; the years 1992 and 2008 are linked, though very unlikely to have any relevance, and the date [[April 2]], 2008, is partially linked for autoformatting; presumably the year is not linked there because the editor, not understanding how autoformatting works, felt that 2008 had been linked already. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a principle that we only make links that are relevant and help to deepen a reader's understanding of the subject. In the unlikely event that the 1896 article is ever turned into something that provides some insight into Henry Allingham's life experience, by all means link to it. But for now and for the foreseeable future, it's not relevant, and neither are any of the year articles. There are plenty of better ways to provide that sort of context. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such dogmatism. Those who find something for their hand to do should remember that others may think differently. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a bizarre response. Dogmatism? If it's relevant, link to it. If it's not, don't. If that's dogmatic, I plead guilty. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To this I agree; the dogmatism consists of the assertion that 1896 isn't relevant, and will never be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This matter will be addressed in depth in an Arbcom-spawned RfC, I suggest that users direct opinions and input about the RfC here. Dabomb87 (talk)

A while back I saw a discussion where many editors voiced opposition to any form of date autoformatting that caused registered users to see different content from unregistered users. Does anyone else remember this? Where is this discussion archived?

I'm wondering because there's now a proposal to open a new can of worms by creating a "formatdate" function that does exactly the same date autoformatting that was rejected before, just without the brackets. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts on that proposal were expressed here and here.  HWV258  02:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, but there was a different discussion before those. It's that previous discussion that I'm looking for. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. Was it one of the links at the end of this essay?  HWV258  02:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. It was a discussion page, probably a talk page. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the shortcut WP:COMPUNITS for the discussion of how to represent binary/decimal values. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (This appears non-controversial; let me know if there is a problem.) Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that cool heads, peace, and civility has broken out—completely unchecked—all over the place on the ArbCom and its related subpages. I have this proposal: Why not unlock MOSNUM with the proviso that anything related to date formats, autoformatting, and date linking be left alone. Greg L (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. After MOSNUM is unlocked, maybe we might see that everyone standing around on Wikipedian street corners will have a confused, blank look, and say to their neighbor “Instead of running for our AK‑47s, wanna play a game of checkers or something?” Greg L (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If desired (and for our sanity) one could consider temporarily moving the "Chronological items" section to a sub-page, protect only that sub-page, and then display it in the main page. That way, no-one would be tempted... Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Perfect. By “display”, you mean transclude that page into the relevant section of MOSNUM; yes? That’s a great way restore some sense of normalcy. Greg L (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the term I was looking for... sorry for the momentary blank-out. If that sounds reasonable to everyone, I can make the change. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I, for one, can not possibly imagine any downside. I don’t even perceive a need to transclude the entire Chronological items section since most of it is uncontroversial stuff. I suggest unlocking everything except except the Linking and autoformatting of dates section, which would be moved and transcluded back. If editwarring starts on adjacent material, it will be only too easy to expand the transclusion range.

  Unlocking MOSNUM will help everyone settle into a feeling of normalcy, which has been sorely lacking for a while. Greg L (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, per Greg's request (and seeing no objections) I have changed the page's protection level to "semi-protected". The "Dates" subsection has been moved to the sub-page "Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Datestempprotectedsection" and that page is fully protected until the dispute is resolved. If this works as planned, editors should be able to make necessary changes to the bulk of the guideline, while preventing edit wars in the controversial "Dates" section. Please let me know how this is working, so that we can tweak or revert as needed. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]